Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies FLOODsite

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/272827005
Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies FLOODsite

Final Report VOLUME 1: ADVANCEMENT IN KNOWLEDGE AND
UNDERSTANDING
Technical Report · March 2009

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1052.4960
CITATION READS
1 158
4 authors, including:
Paul Graham Samuels F. Klijn

HR Wallingford Deltares and Delft University of Technology
107 PUBLICATIONS 1,002 CITATIONS 140 PUBLICATIONS 2,043 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Paul Sayers
University of Oxford
79 PUBLICATIONS 1,482 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 View project
XtremRisK View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Graham Samuels on 27 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Integrated Flood Risk Analysis
and Management Methodologies
FLOODsite Final Report

VOLUME 1: ADVANCEMENT IN KNOWLEDGE AND
UNDERSTANDING
Date February 2009
Report Number T35-09-01

Revision Number 2_0_P01
Deliverable Number: D35.1

Due date for deliverable: February 2009
Actual submission date: February 2009
Task Leader HR Wallingford
FLOODsite is co-funded by the European Community

Sixth Framework Programme for European Research and Technological Development (2002-2006)
FLOODsite is an Integrated Project in the Global Change and Eco-systems Sub-Priority
Start date March 2004, duration 5 Years
Document Dissemination Level
PU Public PU
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Co-ordinator: HR Wallingford, UK
Project Contract No: GOCE-CT-2004-505420
Project website: www.floodsite.net
FLOODsite Final Report: Volume 1
Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
FLOODsite Final Report - Volume 1: Advancement in Knowledge

Title
and Understanding
Lead Author Paul Samuels
Contributors Frans Klijn, Andreas Kortenhaus, Paul Sayers
Distribution Public
Document Reference T35-09-01
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Date Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes
17/12/08 0_0_P1 Paul Samuels HR Wallingford First partial draft
17/02/09 1_0_P1 Paul Samuels HR Wallingford First full draft for comment
14/04/09 2_0 Paul Samuels HR Wallingford Final version with comments
integrated
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work described in this publication was supported by the European Community’s Sixth Framework
Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite, Contract GOCE-CT-
2004-505420.
DISCLAIMER
This document reflects only the authors’ views and not those of the European Community. This work
may rely on data from sources external to the FLOODsite project Consortium. Members of the
Consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors
or inaccuracies in such data. The information in this document is provided “as is” and no guarantee or
warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the
information at its sole risk and neither the European Community nor any member of the FLOODsite
Consortium is liable for any use that may be made of the information.
© 2009 Members of the FLOODsite Consortium
T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FLOODsite was the largest ever EC research project on flood risk management, with an EC grant to
the budget of nearly €10 Million complemented by supporting national funds. The project, which
started in 2004 and was completed in February 2009, involved over 200 researchers from 13 countries
including many of Europe’s leading research institutes and universities. The project was
interdisciplinary integrating expertise from across the environmental and social sciences, as well as
technology, spatial planning and management. All professionals involved in flood risk management
practice now need to consider the question of what actually constitutes “integrated” flood risk
management and to prepare society at large for the change in policy from one of flood defence to flood
risks being managed, but not eliminated. The circumstances in which the research will be
implemented are changing with firstly the entry into force of the European Union Directive on the
assessment and management of flood risks and secondly the concern of the potential for increased
flood hazards arising from climate change as set out in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
The scope of flood risk management is broad with FLOODsite providing incremental contributions to
knowledge and understanding. FLOODsite has examined specific aspects of flood risk management
on risk analysis and assessment methods, appropriate policy and instruments, and event management
and decision support. The research concentrated on topics identified in the original call for research
and took account of the broader context of national and international research projects. During the
research the project team made links with over 80 other research projects and programmes. The
research tasks in FLOODsite were grouped in four of the project “Themes” and covered:
1. Flood risk analysis methods
2. Sustainable Flood Risk Management - Innovative Mitigation and Flood Risk Management
3. Frameworks for technological integration
4. Pilot studies
This final report on the project science serves as a summary of all the activities and results over the
full duration of FLOODsite, with the first volume covering the results of Themes 1 to 3 and the second
volume covering the pilot studies in Theme 4. The content of many of the project science reports are
outlined in task Fact Sheets which are available for download from the website pages that describe
each task. In addition, most tasks have produced an Executive Summary report on their area of
investigation providing an overview of their activities, principal results and remaining gaps in
knowledge. The project partners have been active in presenting and publishing project advances to
scientific, technical and professional communities; the Final plan for using and disseminating the
knowledge identifies 650 publications at the end of the FLOODsite project:
• 155 Journal papers
• 16 Contributions to books
• 300 Conference papers
• 29 Institutional reports and theses
• 31 Posters
• 119 FLOODsite reports on the project science.
FLOODsite strengthened the world-leading position of Europe in knowledge and practice for flood
risk management, which was clearly demonstrated at the FLOODrisk 2008 Conference in Oxford; the
project pilot studies have drawn together the project knowledge and provided feedback from flood risk
managers of rivers, estuaries and coasts as well as from local stakeholders. The use of pilot sites and
collaboration with executive agencies in several countries helped to ensure that FLOODsite results are
of real value, practicable and usable. Exploitation of the project results will follow primarily through
the subsequent development and production of professional standard software to encapsulate the
results. This is beyond the scope of FLOODsite.

iii
Page intentionally blank

iv
CONTENTS
Document Information ii
Document History ii
Acknowledgement ii
Disclaimer ii
Executive Summary iii
Contents v
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.1.1 Terms of reference - The FP6 call and research proposal 1
1.1.2 Scope and ambition of FLOODsite 1
1.1.3 Organisation and governance of the research 2
1.1.4 Specific Objectives of the FLOODsite Themes 3
1.2 The European “Floods” Directive 4
1.3 Scope and layout of the report 6
2. The flood risk system 7

2.1 Initial definitions 7
2.1.1 The meaning of flood and flood risk 7
2.1.2 Scope of the flood risk system 7
2.2 Analysing the state of the flood risk system 8
2.3 Integrated flood risk management 9
2.4 Measures and Instruments 10
2.5 Characteristics of different types of flooding 11
3. Advances in scientific understanding 14

3.1 Flood risk analysis 14
3.1.1 Risk analysis concept 14
3.1.2 Results of FLOODsite for Risk Sources 15
3.1.3 Results of FLOODsite for Risk Pathways 17
3.1.4 Results of FLOODsite for Risk Receptors 20
3.2 Flood risk management 23
3.2.1 Introduction 23
3.2.2 Learning from the past by evaluating measures and instruments in place: a
methodology 24
3.2.3 A strategy research viewpoint on Flood risk management 25
3.2.4 Towards Sustainable Flood Risk Management under Global Change 27
3.2.5 Remote sensing of rainfall and improved flash-flood warning 31
3.2.6 Supporting Evacuation Planning and Traffic Management 33
3.3 Supporting integrated decisions and associated decision support tools 36
3.3.1 Introduction 36
3.3.2 Long term planning – concepts, theories and tools 37
3.3.3 Flood event management – concepts, theories and tools 40
3.3.4 Uncertainty frameworks 44
4. Relevance of FLOODsite to the Floods Directive 48

4.1 Key elements of the Floods Directive 48
4.2 Potential support for Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 48
4.3 Potential Support for Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps 49
4.4 Potential Support for the preparation of Flood Risk Management Plans 49
4.5 Impact of climate change 49

v
5. Interaction between components 50

5.1 Project Integration 50
5.2 Conceptual, methodological and technological integration 53
5.3 Examples of integration of knowledge for climate change and flood risk 53
5.3.1 Future scenarios and flood risk 53
5.3.2 Exploring integrated strategies in Task 14 54
5.3.3 Linking FLOODsite methods in practice - the Thames Estuary 2100 Project 55
5.3.4 Long term planning and risk assessment for the Thames flooding system 55
5.3.5 Climate change impacts on flood frequency in the Elbe basin 56
6. Lessons learned and areas of difficulty 58

6.1 Interdisciplinary communication 58
6.2 Cooperation and interaction takes time 59
6.3 Complex problems and interactions might be simplified 59
6.4 Nothing beats long and thorough experience 59
6.5 External dependencies 60
7. Next steps for research 61

7.1 Introduction 61
7.2 Research to support flood risk management policy and practice 61
7.3 Research on flood risk analysis and processes 63
7.4 Research to support long-term decisions 65
7.5 Research to support flood emergency management 66
8. Challenges and opportunities in an Integrated Project 67

8.1 Introduction 67
8.2 Project organisation, governance and direction 67
8.2.1 Overview 67
8.2.2 The Management Team 67
8.2.3 Team-building and workshop communication 68
8.2.4 Young FLOODsite 68
8.2.5 Website for management and communication 68
8.3 Achieving the goal of an “Integrated Project” 69
8.3.1 FLOODsite characteristics as an Integrated Project 69
8.3.2 Horizontal Integration 69
8.3.3 Vertical and Activity Integration 69
8.4 Complexity of external linking 70
8.4.1 Other research projects 70
8.4.2 National links with institutions and practice 70
8.4.3 Discussion 71
REFERENCES 72
Annex 1 The FLOODsite reports 74
Annex 2 FLOODsite Consortium Partners 77
Tables
Table 2.1 Categorisation of measures and instruments (after Olfert, 2007) 11
Table 2.2 Categorisation of flooding hazards and potential impacts (after Samuels, 2005) 12
Table 3.1 The framework of criteria and indicators for a full assessment 30
Table 5.1 Hierarchy of knowledge and activity for flood risk management 50
Table 5.2 Future flood management strategies for the Netherlands 54
Table 8.1 Projects with links to three or more FLOODsite tasks 70

vi
Figures
Figure 1.1 Overall project structure 2
Figure 1.2 Project governance structure 3
Figure 1.3 Implementation of the Floods Directive 5
Figure 3.1 Integrated frameworks for flood risk analysis and management 14
Figure 3.2 Water level statistics and extrapolation to extremes using Bayesian (Bayes) against
Maximum Likelihood (ML) methods 16
Figure 3.3 Methodology to generate a coastal flood hazard map 17
Figure 3.4 Different types of flood defence assets 18
Figure 3.5 Photograph taken during the large-scale model tests on dike breaching due to wave
overtopping 19
Figure 3.6 Components of the RELIABLE software 20
Figure 3.7 Schematic for mapping risk to life (Priest et al., 2007) 22
Figure 3.8: Three dimensions of strategies for FRM 26
Figure 3.9 Schematic overview of the method for developing and assessing long-term flood risk
management strategies in view of uncertain futures 28
Figure 3.10 Sample graphical system output for FFG and FFT 32
Figure 3.11 Application of the ORCHESTRA web tools to the Gard Region of France 35
Figure 3.12: Framework of flood risk management (Schanze, 2005) 37
Figure 3.13 Overview of processes steps within the methodological framework 38
Figure 3.14 DSS Tools for long term planning: Example screen shots from the three pilot sites 39
Figure 3.15 Example of multi-staged decision process used within the Thames DSS 39
Figure 3.16 Methodological framework for flood event management DSS 41
Figure 3.17 Technological framework of the DSS for the Thames and Schelde Estuaries 41
Figure 3.18 Display of evacuation times for Thamesmead 42
Figure 3.19 ESS screen showing the time of inundation for a breach scenario ‘Rilland’ 43
Figure 3.19 Flood Hazard mapping for the project site in Nice 44
Figure 3.20 Routes of evacuation during flooding event 44
Figure 3.21 Uncertainty analysis framework – documenting, recording and challenging uncertainty 46
Figure 3.22 The generalized framework of the UNEEC method. 47
Figure 5.1 Links between project science in Theme 1 and the pilot sites 51
Figure 5.2 Links between project science in Themes 2 and 3 and the pilot sites 52
Figure 5.3 Thames Estuary flood risk for a range of climate change scenarios from Task 24 56

vii
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Terms of reference - The FP6 call and research proposal
In late 2002, the European Commission Directorate General for Research issued the first call for
research in the Sixth Framework Programme priority on Global Change and Ecosystems with the Call
Identifier FP6-2002-Global-1. The work programme, paragraph 1.1.6.3.IV.2.b, called for one of the
two “new instruments” - an Integrated Project (IP) or Network of Excellence (NoE) - to tackle the
following priority topic:
“Integrated strategies and tools for hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment, prevention and
mitigation of flood risks in the river basin, coastal zone and the estuaries. Development of
innovative design of sustainable flood defences and risk mitigation measures. Operationalisation of
methods and technologies developed as well as their efficiency and cost of implementation.
Understanding and prediction of coastal flood related extreme events, their interaction and
synergetic effects with coastal morphodynamics. Exchange and dissemination of related
information to user communities.”
The FLOODsite partners submitted a proposal in April 2003 for an IP to respond to this call and
formed a consortium to undertake the research. The Consortium negotiated a programme of work
with DG Research and the FLOODsite project was one of the first IP’s to commence work on 1st
March 2004, with project duration of 5 years.
1.1.2 Scope and ambition of FLOODsite

FLOODsite has undertaken predominantly applied research, with elements of basic research and some
pre-competitive technological development. The outputs of FLOODsite are principally advances in
knowledge and understanding on a variety of issues within the general ream of flood risk management
which have been pilot-tested in the context of some real-life situations. Our original ambition for the
project included:
• A consistent approach to the whole system, comprising the natural hazard, the socio-economic
vulnerability and the natural ecological and human cultural values.
• Consistency across cause of flooding from rivers, estuaries and the sea.
• A framework for integrated flood risk management:
¾ Sustainable pre-flood measures (infrastructure provision, planning and vulnerability reduction)
¾ Flood event management (early warning, evacuation and emergency response)
¾ Post-event activities (review and regeneration)
• Integration with and advancement from other EC and national research.
In May 2005, a major international conference was held on flood management at Nijmegen the Third
International Symposium on Flood Defence (van Alphen et al, 2006). This drew an audience of over
300 researchers, experts and professionals engaged in flood management worldwide. The move from
flood protection and defence to integrated flood risk management and “making room for rivers” was
evident in many national contexts and in the policy of the EU as presented by DG Environment. This
change in philosophy is at the heart of the FLOODsite objectives and research plan. FLOODsite has
explored the proper system representation and societal understanding of flood risk management as the
context within which the scientific and technological research advances will be implemented. During
our research progress has been made on many issues including:
• Identification, design and appraisal of sustainable flood risk mitigation measures
• Improved understanding of complex flood defence systems, their failure modes and their
interaction with morphodynamic processes.
• Consistent and integrated flood risk assessment and management procedures for all sources of
flooding, including reviewing methodologies for the preparation of a European Flood Hazard Atlas

1
• Understanding and statistical appraisal of weather and marine extremes which generate flood
hazards and the hydrometeorology of flash flood hazards in small basins
• Improved understanding of the vulnerability of the public and assets to flood damage
• Improved disaster preparedness, evacuation and emergency management procedures and social
resilience
The research has also provided methods that have enabled the exploration during the project of how
flood risks may develop over time due to changes in the climate, demographic, economic and social
development and of the possibilities to influence these changes. This has been achieved through
scenario-based analyses in the context of real-life applications.
As described in Section 1.2 below a fundamental change in the external context over the past year is
the entry into force of the EU “Floods” Directive. The wording of the Directive allows for
considerable flexibility in its implementation in national law, respecting the national and regional
context in which flood risk management occurs through the Subsidiarity Principle. Accordingly
FLOODsite has provided a set of Integrated Methodologies for use in flood risk management practice
not a single methodology, thus respecting the diversity of practice in each Member State
1.1.3 Organisation and governance of the research

The proposal and subsequent contractual Description of Work (DOW) for FLOODsite arranged the
work into seven “Themes” which were divided into a total of 35 Tasks. Four of these themes covered
the development of the project science and three covered generic activities including dissemination,
training, networking and management and coordination; Figure 1.1 shows their interrelationship.
Figure 1.1 Overall project structure
The project governance structure included a Management Team responsible for the day-to-day running
of the project, and three boards to provide assessment, review and advice, see Figure 1.2. There were
two expert advisory boards (on scientific and technical issues and on application and implementation)
and an oversight project board under independent chairmanship which reported annually to DG
Research. In addition the FLOODsite Consortium reported annually on the scientific progress of the
project to DG Research who commissioned an independent evaluation of the reports. The Scientific
and Technical Advisory Board (STAB) reviewed the project science on several occasions, taking

2
reports from and questioning the task leaders; the STAB then recommended means of improving some
Task outputs. The Applications and Implementation Advisory Board (AIB) also met annually, making
recommendations on the take-up of the project science. The AIB recommendations resulted in the
Management Team organising a dissemination meeting with WG-F (see section 1.2 below) and
producing fact sheets which provide an easy entry into the project outputs for practitioners.
Figure 1.2 Project governance structure
1.1.4 Specific Objectives of the FLOODsite Themes

The objectives of each of the seven project themes were set out in the Description of Work as follows:
Theme 1 – Risk analysis: Scientific knowledge and understanding
• To improve understanding of the primary drivers of flood risk (waves, surges, river flow etc.)
through research targeted at key issues and processes that significantly contribute to current
uncertainty in flood risk analysis.
• To improve understanding, models and techniques for the analysis of the performance of the whole
flood defence system and its diverse components, including natural and man-made defences (e.g.
seawalls, embankments, dunes) and the extent of inundation.
• To understand the vulnerability and sensitivity of the receptors of risk and to improve and
harmonise the methods to evaluate societal consequences and to estimate flood event damages
Theme 2 – Innovative mitigation and sustainable flood risk management
• To evaluate flood risk management measures and instruments ex-post and to develop sustainable
flood risk management strategies and evaluate these ex-ante under consideration of a wide range of
different physical and societal conditions.
• To improve flood risk mitigation measures that are applied during the flood event, through
improved technology for flood warning in small flash-flood catchments and through measures for
emergency evacuation.
Theme 3 – Frameworks for technological integration
• To integrate the scientific, technological and procedural advances to support long term flood risk
management decisions.
• To integrate the scientific, technological and procedural advances to support flood event
management decisions.
• To develop a framework for the identification and quantification of the influence of uncertainty in
the process of flood risk management.

3
Theme 4 – Pilot application sites

• To provide real sites with real and specific problems upon which tools, techniques and decision
support systems may be developed and tested.
• To provide feedback into the research and development process from flood risk managers and
river, estuary and coastal stakeholders.
• To ensure the FLOODsite deliverables are of real value, practicable and usable.
Theme 5 –Training activities (Knowledge transfer, training and uptake, Guidance and tools)
• To provide Best Practice Guidance based upon the research outcomes
• To disseminate, and support transfer, of knowledge to the stakeholder communities
• To provide educational material (paper, web-based, training course) for selected end users such as
the public, professionals, school children, students etc.
Theme 6 – Project networking, harmonisation and monitoring
• To link with external research and policy development activities
• To provide internal coherence within the FLOODsite consortium (e.g. through the development of
a common “language of risk” for flood risk management)
• To integrate review and assessment into the project activities
Theme 7 – Project co-ordination
• To ensure effective and efficient overall management of the project, including administrative and
financial aspects, communication with the commission, exploitation of results etc.
1.2 The European “Floods” Directive

An important policy development that occurred during the FLOODsite project is the entry into force
on 26th November 2007 of the European Directive on the assessment and management of floods
(Directive 2007/60/EC; or the “Floods Directive”). Article 1 describes the objective as follows:
“The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the assessment and management of
flood risks, aiming at the reduction of the adverse consequences for human health, the
environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the Community.”
The Floods Directive applies to the whole Community territory, and therefore to flood risk
management in both rivers and coastal areas. The new Directive is aligned with the Water Framework
Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC; or the “WFD”). It sets out the need for assessments, maps and plans
that cover the river basin district including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and where
appropriate associated coastal zones through:
• Preliminary flood risk assessment
• Flood risk maps
• Flood risk management plans
It is clear that FLOODsite is directly relevant to the needs of the Floods Directive and this was
identified in the explanatory memorandum to the Commission’s proposal for the Directive:
“European research policy has been supporting research into different components of flood risk
management since the early 1980s through successive Framework Programmes. The Sixth
Framework Programme is supporting the largest ever EU flood research project, “FLOODsite”,
which is developing integrated flood risk analysis and management methods. The proposed 7th
Framework programme will continue to support research on flood risk assessment and
management.”
Working Group F (WG-F) has been constituted by DG Environment under the Common
Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the WFD and has two primary tasks:
• information exchange for example on research outcomes and current good practice, and
• support for the implementation of the Floods Directive within the CIS framework.

4
The FLOODsite coordinator has participated in WG-F meetings as one means of communicating the
project results to those with responsibility for flood risk management in practice.
Implementation Timetable
It is recognised that the Floods Directive requires management in similar geographical units to the
Water Framework Directive (WFD) and its river basin management plan process. Thus the
Commission is encouraging a harmonisation of reporting processes between the two directives where
this is appropriate. The implementation timetable is set out in the Floods Directive is:
• the preliminary flood risk assessment should be complete by 22 December 2011;
• the flood hazard and flood risk maps are to be complete by 22 December 2013
• the flood risk management plans are to be prepared and published by 22 December 2015
Article 14 requires the revision and updating of the preliminary flood risk assessment by 22 December
2018, the flood hazard maps and of the flood risk maps by 22 December 2019 and revision of plans by
22 December 2021 and then all updated on a six-yearly cycle. This is illustrated in Figure 1.3 below.
Figure 1.3 Implementation of the Floods Directive 1
1
This Figure was provided by DG Environment (Unit D.2)

5
1.3 Scope and layout of the report

This final report on the FLOODsite Integrated Project is in two parts – Volume 1 covers the advances
in scientific knowledge and understanding, primarily generated by Themes 1, 2 and 3 of our research
and set in the real-life context of the pilot sites. Volume 2 provides a summary of the key results of
our pilot studies and some common issues emerging from them. The intended readership of both
reports includes:
• Researchers and educators wanting to gain an overview of the FLOODsite achievements
• Policy makers and practitioners in flood risk management
• Commission officers in DG Research and DG Environment
Volume 1 is set out in the following manner:

• An overview of the flood risk system (Chapter 2)
• Contributions to knowledge (Chapter 3)
• Relationship with the Floods Directive (Chapter4)
• Gaps in knowledge (Chapter 5)
• Reflections on aspects of the project (Chapters 6 to 8)

6
2. The flood risk system

2.1 Initial definitions
2.1.1 The meaning of flood and flood risk
In the Floods Directive, the word “flood” means the temporary covering by water of land not
normally covered by water. This definition is now included in the second edition of the FLOODsite
Language of Risk (Reference) in preference to the original definition in the first edition (“A temporary
covering of land by water outside its normal confines”). The revision was made to aid the
communication between FLOODsite and the European flood risk management community,
nevertheless the revised definition expresses the essence of the earlier one.
In the Floods Directive, the phrase “flood risk” means the combination of the probability of a flood
event and of the potential adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage
and economic activity associated with a flood event. This definition is now included in the second
edition of the FLOODsite Language of Risk (FLOODsite Report: T32-04-01) as the first edition did
not specifically define the phrase. The nature and analysis of the means of this “combination” of
probability and consequences of a flood formed part of the research agenda for FLOODsite.
2.1.2 Scope of the flood risk system

In the broadest terms, a risk system may be described as the social and physical domain within which
risks arise and are managed. An understanding of the way a system behaves and, in particular, the
mechanisms by which it may fail, is an essential aspect of understanding risk. This is as true for an
organisational system like flood warning, as it is for a more physical system, such as a series of flood
defences protecting a flood plain.
Thus the totality of flood risk system analysed in FLOODsite encompassed:

• the physical, geological and biological processes in the sources and propagation of flooding,
• social, ecological and economic impacts of flooding,
• risk management options, strategies, measures and instruments over a variety of time frames
• policy, governance, executive and institutional arrangements
• the interactions and feedbacks between all these factors
The interactions can be assessed, for example, in the DPSIR framework as adopted by the European
Environment Agency (EEA) and as used in the UK Flooding Foresight review (OST, 2004). The EEA
website gives the definition as follows (see http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/EEAGlossary/D/DPSIR ):
The causal framework for describing the interactions between society and the environment adopted
by the European Environment Agency: driving forces, pressures, states, impacts, responses
(extension of the PSR model developed by OECD).
The research in FLOODsite has challenged the current approaches to risk analysis, assessment and
management and highlighted the need for:
• Risk analysis – that includes hazard definition; whole system model integration; software
integration; the identification and handling of uncertainty.
• Risk assessment – that includes normative perspectives; multi-criteria assessment; acceptability and
tolerability; disciplinary integration;
• Risk management - that implements a portfolio of measures from pre-event, during event and post
event actions in association with supporting activities of monitoring and resourcing, and embedded
within wider societal plans.
• Exploration of the future – through the use of scenarios and consideration of strategic alternatives;
structured approaches to the assessment of sustainability through consideration of decision
robustness and flexibility.

7
2.2 Analysing the state of the flood risk system

A view of the state of the flood risk system at any given point in time is usefully described by the
Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequences (SPRC) model, where:
• Sources – are the origins of flood hazards (for example, heavy rainfall, strong winds, surge etc). In
the context of a risk based approach it is important to consider a full range of events and not pre-
determined “design” events – an approach that is inconsistent with a risk-based philosophy.
• Pathways – are the routes that a hazard takes to reach Receptors. Pathways must exist for a hazard
to impact upon receptors; pathways must be considered comprehensively and screened.
• Receptors – are the entities that may be harmed (a person, property, habitat etc.). The chance of a
receptor being exposed to a flood at a given location will reflect not only the chance of the flood
event but also the behaviour of the receptor at the time when the flood happens.
• Consequences – express the degree of harm suffered by a receptor or group of receptors due to a
given flood event. The consequences may depend upon the seasonal timing of the flood and time
interval of the exposure to the flood
Risk is a function of probability, exposure and vulnerability. Often, in practice, exposure is

incorporated in the assessment of consequences, therefore, for the purposes of FLOODsite risk was
considered as having two components — the probability that an event will occur and the impact (or
consequence) associated with that event. In the first edition of the Language of Risk (FLOODsite
Report: T32-04-01) risk was defined by the “equation”
Risk = (probability) x (consequence)
However, the multiplication “x” is really a combination across all floods, and so an alternative
description in the Second Edition of the Language of Risk (FLOODsite Report: T32-04-01, 2nd Ed.)
risk is defined as:
“Probability multiplied by consequence in which the multiplication is to be understood as

including the combination across all floods.”
Or more generally:
Risk = function (probability, consequence)
The interpretation of this simple relationship is more complex and much richer than first appears. For
example:
• Probability (of a flood event) - is the chance (or in Bayesian terms the measure of our strength of
belief) that a given event will occur (for example a flood depth exceeding 1m at a given place in
the floodplain). We consider probability over a specific time-frame (1 tide, 1 month, 1 year or an
average human life-time etc). In determining the chance of the flood event both a source of the
flood and pathway, from the source to the given place on the floodplain, must exist. The concept
of probability can be further extended to consider the chance of a receptor being exposed to
flooding and experiencing adverse consequences.
• The consequence term can be sub-divided into two key components – exposure and vulnerability.
o Exposure - Quantification of the receptors that may be influenced by a hazard (flood), for
example, number of people and their demographics, number and type of properties etc
o Vulnerability – Characteristic of a system that describes its potential to be harmed.
Vulnerability can, however, be further sub-divided into a combination of:

8
o Susceptibility - is the propensity of a particular receptor to experience harm. This describes

the nature of the harm caused (for example, material destruction – a carpet maybe destroyed
– to loss of a particular flora or fauna, human death or injury etc).
o Value - which makes explicit the value system we chose to use; the value may be expressed
in more than one way (e.g. casualties can be counted and also given a monetary value).
In understanding the likely consequences of a flood it is therefore important to understand the nature
of the receptor and how it will be impacted by a flood. For example, some receptors, such as
residential properties, can be considered “static”, whereas receptors such as people and cars may be
“dynamic”, and may or may not be present at the time of a flood. This may reflect actions taken to
evacuate or simply due to the time of day the flood occurs (rush hour, night time etc). This dynamic
behaviour can change the chance of a receptor being present and hence the exposure to a flood. Often
receptors can initiate secondary sources of risk. For example, pollutants may be released from a
flooded sewerage works (leading to public health issues), water supply maybe disrupted, roadways
blocked etc. More elaborated methods are starting to emerge that can deal with these interactions;
however these are not considered here (Tapsell, 2008). The valuation of socio-economic flood
damages has been examined in FLOODsite Task 9, which has provided guidance on the assessment of
socio-economic flood damages across Europe (Messner et al, 2007). Finally the overall consequences
of flooding on receptors will depend also their “resilience” which covers the capacity to return to
normal after the flood. FLOODsite Task 11 explored factors that comprise social resilience
(FLOODsite Report: T11-07-12).
2.3 Integrated flood risk management

Very little of the European coast line or land area has escaped human influence, with increasing
pressures over generations of settlement, agriculture, industry and commerce. Amongst these are
water and flood management activities which control the extent and frequency of floods and the
drainage of water from the land. There are many potential interactions in the flood risk system, some
obvious or planned and others unexpected and the effects of some of these interactions have been
explored in our research and exemplified in the FLOODsite pilot studies.
FLOODsite took place in a time of change in policy and practice in flood risk management. Thus the
research was delivered into a different context from that existing at the conception of the FP6 work
programme and the research project proposals. Professionals involved in flood risk management are
being forced to consider the question of what actually constitutes “integrated” flood risk management
and to prepare society at large for the change in policy from one of defence to flood risks being
managed but not eliminated. The Floods Directive provides a framework for doing so and has
particular reference to the need for collaboration in transnational basins.
Within flood risk management “risk” has generally been understood as a combination of probability
and consequence, interpreted in a comprehensive way (see Section 2.2 above). A more formal and
detailed syntax describing “risk” enables a more subtle and useful understanding of the drivers of risk
to be developed. In particular, although current approaches seek to be support “risk-based” and
“sustainable” decision making they are often limited in their consideration of the sources, pathways
and receptor impacts of flooding and often fail to integrate within broader spatial planning and social
policies. “Risks” are also typically evaluated in deterministic terms with limited effort devoted to
understanding uncertainty, a position that runs counter to robust decision making.
The Floods Directive and its close association with the WFD mean that the impacts of flood risk
management measures have to be considered broadly, rather than focussing narrowly on the
immediate effects on water level. Integrated flood risk management (IFRM) is a comprehensive and
continuous process of analysis, assessment and action. It considers the external pressures placed upon
the flood risk system by climate and societal change; the state of the flooding system (including all the
sources of the flood hazard and the various pathways that link them through to the receptors); as well
as a full range of potential impacts and the possible responses to mitigate them. Most importantly

9
IFRM demands an integration of the flood risk management process with wider societal demands and
aspirations. As such, IFRM can be seen as distinct from the primarily reactive approaches that have
often characterised traditional flood defence based paradigms and the often sectorial context of current
flood risk management approaches.
The basic characteristics of the IFRM therefore seek to:

• Appropriately reduce the chance of flooding – acting to reduce the frequency, speed, depth or
duration of floodplain flows (this could be through local or remote measures).
• Appropriately reduce the resultant harmful con-sequences should a flood occur – acting to reduce
the potential exposure to flooding (through the removal of property from the floodplain for ex-
ample) or reducing the vulnerability (through flood proofing critical assets, aiding individuals and
organisations to act rationally during a flood to alleviate harm and promote faster recovery).
• Support sustainable economic growth – provide space for prudent economic development to
maintain robust local and national economies.
• Support good ecological function – any modification of the natural functioning of the coast, river
and surface drainage systems should maximize the ecology potential and minimizes adverse
impacts.
• Promote sustainable development – flood risk management actions should be integrated with
broader sustainability objectives. This will enable future generations to have choice in meeting
their flood risk management needs.
The challenge of achieving IFRM in practice can not be underestimated. It will depend upon
improved and more efficient tools and techniques (providing improved functionality to explore risk
and a richer, more useful and useable evidence on risk). It will also crucially depend upon the
common desire across all stakeholders (researchers, practitioners and policy makers) to improve their
performance. The science and development within FLOODsite (as summarised in this report) provides
an important step towards this goal.
2.4 Measures and Instruments

Flood risk management practice will draw upon a portfolio of measures and instruments aimed a
reducing flood risk. Measures are a physical intervention in the properties of the flooding system,
principally on the flood pathway (either as construction of infrastructure or management of the land)
that reduces the magnitude of the flood hazard experienced by the receptors. They are usually
implemented by the flood risk managing authorities. Measures traditionally include all kinds of
permanent structural measures, i.e. river and coastal engineering works, such as dams, flood walls,
embankments, or river training works.
Instruments are, in contrast, not direct physical interventions in the environment. Policy instruments
are intended to influence the attitude or actions of others than the immediate responsible authorities’
managers themselves. Three main groups of instruments can be distinguished, namely
communication, financial and regulation instruments. Communication may, for example, enhance the
people’s risk awareness and preparedness. Financial instruments may influence people’s investments
or may encourage them to flood-proof their property. Regulatory instruments, such as land-use
regulations, allow or prohibit certain activities at all.
The broad definitions in the Language of Risk are:

• Measure - a physical intervention in the environment, which exercises an effect directly through its
existence.
• Instrument - a means of influencing the attitudes or behaviour of parties who co-determine the
flood risk.
FLOODsite Task 12 (Olfert, 2007) provided a description of examples of measures and instruments
for ex-post flood analysis and these have been extended as Table 2.1 below.

10
Table 2.1 Categorisation of measures and instruments (after Olfert, 2007)
Class Category Examples

• Land use management for flood prevention and reduction
Adaptation
• Coastal, channel and flood plain management
• Flood storage reservoirs and emergency attenuation polders
• Channel and flood plain capacity augmentation
• Flood diversion channels and water transfer sluices
• Linear defences (e.g. embankments, walls, dunes, demountables)
• Flood plain compartmentalisation and local ring bunds
Infrastructure
Measures • Coastal wave reduction (e.g. offshore reef)
• Beach nourishing and stabilisation
• Surge exclusion barriers and barrages
• Drainage pumping
• Flood proofing
• Move habitation (population resettlement)
Retreat • Move other assets (e.g. industry, commerce, infrastructure)
• Change land use (e.g. farming practice)
• Public education and awareness
Communication
• Flood warning and action advice
• Financial Incentives
Financial • Financial Disincentives
Instruments • Risk transfer (insurance)
• Water management policy (including European Directives)
• Spatial planning, flood plain zoning
Regulation
• Building construction codes
• Environmental designation
In addition to these measures and instruments, actions taken in a flood event can also reduce the harm
and damage experienced and so be part of the overall risk reduction.
2.5 Characteristics of different types of flooding

There are diverse causes of flooding, from various types of meteorological events through to failures
of man-made infrastructure. The lecture notes form the EC Advanced Study Course of Samuels
(2005) provides a catalogue of these, which is extended in Table 2.2. FLOODsite considered a sub-
set of these flooding types; in particular FLOODsite did not cover explicitly flooding from tsunami,
groundwater, sewerage, burst water mains or dam break. However the principles in the generic
analysis methods in the research are not just restricted to flooding from rivers, estuaries and the coast.

11
Table 2.2 Categorisation of flooding hazards and potential impacts (after Samuels, 2005)
Type of flood Type of event Number of Geographic Type of damage Type of mitigation
or frequency properties affected Distribution
River Flash Summer 1-500+ • Small steep river • Inundation damage to buildings and contents, vehicles • Flood warning service
Flood storms catchments written off • Community
• May trigger other • Buildings and bridges destroyed preparedness
hazards e.g. • Campsites and caravan parks particularly vulnerable • Land use regulation
landslides and • Possible significant loss of life (e.g. 300 in Sarno IT, • Land management
mudflow 1998). practice
Lowland river Winter season 1-500+ • River flood plain • Inundation damage to buildings and contents, vehicles • Hard defence measures
flood (Basins rainfall, spring Major towns and • Flooding in one or written off, possible structural damage. • Flood storage
up to 10000 snowmelt cities may give more river • May lead to locally significant displacement of • Flood warning service
km2) larger numbers catchments at any population • Land use regulation
one time • Deep flooding possible behind raised defences. • Emergency evacuation
• Disruption to critical national infrastructure (water,
power, telecommunication, transport)
Major river Seasonality 10,000+ • River flood plains • Inundation damage to buildings and contents, vehicles • Hard defence measures
basins up to depends upon Major towns and • Trans-national basins written off, possible structural damage. • Flood storage
250000 km2 basin and cities give large • Flooding in one or • Major infrastructure disrupted • Flood warning service
climate numbers more river • May lead to large displacement of population (approx • Land use regulation
catchments at any 250,000 for Rhine floods in 1995). • Emergency evacuation
one time • Deep flooding possible behind raised defences.
• Flash floods in • Economic loss for event significant in terms of national
headwaters economic growth rate (> 0.1% GDP)
Coastal (surge Winter season 1-500+ • Coastal fringe / • Deep flooding possible behind raised defences. • Hard defence measures
and wave) Major towns and estuary / mapped • Inundation damage to buildings and contents • Soft engineered
cities may give flood risk zone • Possible loss of life (2000+ in 1953) defences
larger numbers • Flooding possible • Major disruption possible from storm surges • Storm-tide warning
over large lengths of • Single storey dwellings, campsites and caravan parks services
coast (e.g. 1953 particularly vulnerable • Land use regulation
North Sea storm) • Vehicles written off • Emergency evacuation
Tsunami Any time but 1-10,000+ • Coastal zones and • Inundation damage to buildings and contents, vehicles • Contingency planning
infrequent depending on hinterland written off, • Spatial planning
location • Widespread agricultural damages • Warning systems
• Destruction of buildings, major infrastructure disrupted • Emergency evacuation
• Potential significant loss of life

12
Type of flood Type of event Number of Geographic Type of damage Type of mitigation
or frequency properties affected Distribution
Groundwater Prolonged Small clusters • Certain geologies • Inundation damage to buildings and contents • Flood proofing
seasons of (limestone, chalk, • Especially basements • Pumping from
rainfall sandstone etc) • Long duration inundation damage (weeks or months) properties
• Outside main river • Land use regulation
floodplain
Pluvial floods - Prolonged Isolated or small • Hill slopes • Inundation damage to buildings and contents • Flood proofing
overland flow heavy rainfall clusters • Outside main river • Damage to agriculture • Pumping from
floodplain • Possibly vehicle accidents properties
• Land use regulation
Pluvial floods - Intense storms Isolated or small • Anywhere adjacent to • Inundation damage to buildings and contents • Routine maintenance
storm and – especially in clusters roads or urban areas • Possibly vehicle accidents of watercourses and
highway summer Urban areas drainage systems
drainage • Sustainable drainage
systems
Pluvial floods - Common 1-20+ • Outside main river • Inundation damage to buildings and contents • Land use regulation
minor water- floodplain • Hard defence measures
courses • Blocked culverts and • Routine maintenance
bridges of watercourses
Dam break Any time but 1-1,000+ • Specific river valleys • Inundation damage to buildings and contents, vehicles • Monitoring on-site.
infrequent • Outside main river written off, • Risk management by
floodplain • Destruction of buildings, destruction of bridges, major owners
infrastructure disrupted • Contingency plans
• Potential significant loss of life within 25 km of dam • Emergency evacuation
Water mains Any time Small clusters • Anywhere • Inundation damage to buildings and contents • Asset inspection and
burst • Especially basements renewal by water
service providers
Sewerage e.g. Any time Isolated or small • Anywhere • Inundation damage to buildings and contents • Asset inspection and
by blockage or clusters • Outside main river • Foul sewage contamination renewal by water
collapse floodplain • Especially basements service providers

13
3. Advances in scientific understanding

3.1 Flood risk analysis
3.1.1 Risk analysis concept
A concept for the design and management of sustainable coastal defences needs to fulfil a number of
requirements, including
• process-oriented research of failure modes and their interaction,
• reliability analysis and reliability based tools,
• risk source-pathway-receptor approach,
• risk management as an integral part of the design of new flood defences and the safety assessment
of existing defences,
• integrated approach,
• consistent and transparent framework of tolerable flood risk with appropriate
methodologies/modelling tools.
Figure 3.1 below shows the interaction of these concepts in a simplified way.
Flood Hazard Vulnerability
Risk Sources Risk Pathways Risk Receptors Risk Acceptance

• Storm surge • Loads and • People • Resilience
• Wind waves Resistances • Property • Risk perception
• River discharge • Defence failures • Habitats • Risk
• Inundation communication
Iteration and updating

Predicted Flooding Expected damages
Probability Pf,c and losses E(D)
Predicted Flood Risk Tolerable Flood Risk

Iteration & updating
Rf,c = Pf,c ⋅ E(D) Rf,t
Residual Flood Risk
(Residual) Risk Management

Pre-event During Event Post event
Figure 3.1 Integrated frameworks for flood risk analysis, assessment and management
The following three key steps should be considered:
1. Determination of flooding probability Pf,c:

This step requires the knowledge of any probability of occurrence of an extreme event such as a
storm surge or a river discharge, possibly provided as a probability density function (pdf).
Additionally, the equivalent information for any associated parameter or any joint probability
density function (jpdf) is also needed, e.g. a storm surge water level and a wave height. This will
then be combined with the failure probabilities of flood defence assets and will eventually result in
a flooding probability calculated e.g. from an overall fault tree approach (system analysis).

14
2. Determination of expected damages and losses E(D):

This step requires information of damages and losses in the flood prone areas. Whilst considerable
knowledge is available for the assessment of so-called direct economic damages there are
significant difficulties to determine indirect economic damages (such as increased unemployment),
and both direct and indirect intangible losses as loss of lives, health problems, social problems, etc.
The difficult task here is not only to find a suitable unit for the damages (other than money terms)
but also to find the appropriate method to determine these losses in different countries with
different people living there.
3. Prediction of flood risk Rf,c:

This consists of the predicted flood probability Pf,c and the expected damages and losses E(D) such
as Rf,c = Pf,c⋅E(D). Often, flood risk cannot easily be determined as the simple product of
probability and expected losses but depends on the magnitude of its components (a “low
probability - high consequences (LPHC)” case is not identical to a “high probability – low
consequences (HPLC)” case). Risk as discussed in Section 2.2 is a combination across all floods of
the probability and consequence. In addition, calculations are often based on scenarios which are
usually based on experience rather than scientific knowledge. These restrictions have to be
accounted for.
The remaining sub-sections summarise some key results following the risk source-pathway- receptor-
consequence model; further information is available from the FLOODsite website pages for the
various tasks, see www.floodsite.net.
3.1.2 Results of FLOODsite for Risk Sources

Within risk sources, Tasks 1, 2 and 3 of FLOODsite dealt with
• the improved understanding of flash floods;
• methods to deal with extremes; and
• flood hazard mapping mainly for coastal areas
Some of the results obtained in these Tasks are summarised below.
Task 1 aimed to improve understanding of the hydrometeorological processes associated with flash
floods. The approach adopted was to undertake both a detailed analysis of storm events and of their
hydrological responses. Meteorological analyses were based on both observations (radar, raingauge
data) and results of high-resolution simulated rain fields. In total, four different storms producing flash
flood were analyzed: three in Southeast France and one in the Eastern part of the Italian Alps. These
analyses highlighted some common features and explained the steadiness of the storms that lead to
locally intense precipitation: the role of the orography, favourable synoptic conditions (low level
convergence; slow evolving convective system). This work identified the need to develop and
generalize radar observation for flash-flood understanding and the capacity of the high-resolution
meteorological model to reproduce such intense precipitation events. Several catchments (in Italy,
Netherlands and Spain) were selected to study hydrological processes associated with flash-floods; see
report T01-07-01 2. The role of initial soil moisture has identified and based on theoretical simulation
with the physically based model HsB, the link between the characteristics of the hillslopes (slope,
depth …) and the dynamic of the flood has been identified. Efforts were also focused on the
conceptualization and the modelling the hydrometeorological processes involved in flash flooding for
ungauged catchments.
FLOODsite Task 2 dealt with extremes and has used available methods (Bayesian techniques, trend
analysis, Singular Spectrum Analysis, Joint Probability Analysis, Regional Frequency Approach,
Canonical Correlation Analysis, Bootstrapping, Neural Network) to analyse limited samples of
extreme data, to find correlations (both spatial and in time), and to provide improved probability
2
Annex 1 lists the FLOODsite reports; these are available from www.floodsite.net

15
density functions for extreme data. By their nature only limited observations of extremes were
available and so advanced analysis methods were needed and these were adapted and further
developed. The work of Task 2 encompassed both data preparation and the evaluation of fit
parameters (those probabilistic model parameters estimated from comparing the available observations
against model predictions). The research has specifically included the criteria to define extremes and
how to select a homogeneous sample to perform the corresponding statistical analyses. This becomes
particularly important in view of the limited number of extreme events actually recorded, due to the
exceptional character of such events. The work in this task also compared critically the various
probabilistic distributions available to characterize these extremes.
The use of joint probabilistic distributions for extreme values is considered to be an important topic
since many of the recently observed “failures” of both man-made and natural systems have been
associated to the simultaneous occurrence of extreme (or even relatively high) values of more than one
variable or “driver”. Some suggestions on the common use of such joint probability distribution
functions and some advanced guidance for a better assessment have also been produced within the
task. The uncertainty should be estimated explicitly, including as many sources of uncertainty as
practical, to avoid misunderstandings in associated decision making.
The assessment of risk (due to flooding or erosion) in regional terms requires the joint distribution of
extremes at different (neighbouring) locations. The total hazard level depends on the degree of spatial
correlation between the considered points. Inclusion of this spatial dimension is also recommended to
capture better the dynamic structure of a storm event; this results in a more reliable prediction of
regional risks. This could also lead to a reduction in uncertainty for marginal (point-wise) extreme
distributions and the resulting estimates. The joint probability distribution concept should also be
applied to evaluate hazards in many natural (e.g. beaches and dunes) or man-made (e.g. dike) barriers.
This is because failure modes or the corresponding limit state equations are normally dependent on
more than one variable (e.g. waves and storm surges for coasts or river level and velocity for rivers).
This involves the use of joint distributions with suitable consideration of correlations. The
applications described in the guidance document from Task 2 illustrate some of the difficulties
associated with analysis of extremes, particularly for cases with more than one variable.
Understanding the assumptions and interpreting the obtained results are important for extremes
analysis.
Task 2 identified three main points:

• Data handling, and in particular the storm definition and selection play a critical role in the
resulting probabilistic distributions.
• The fit techniques to evaluate the distribution parameters are also quite important in that they may
lead to significant different estimates.
• The level of uncertainty should be made always explicit since it affects the overall "procedure".
For instance normally we tend to think that the return period is a fixed value while that is simply
not the case (e.g. see Figure 3.2).
Results have been published in a Special Issue of the

Journal of Hydraulic Research (see Sánchez-Arcilla
et al., 2008 or Hawkes et al., 2008). An example of
extreme value analysis and extrapolation into
extremes with and without use of Bayesian methods
is shown in Figure 3.2 (see Galiatsatou et al., 2008).
Figure 3.2 Water level statistics and extrapolation

to extremes using Bayesian (Bayes) against
Maximum Likelihood (ML) methods

16
Task 3 of FLOODsite reviewed existing methods for mapping flood hazards in rivers and at the coast.
From that, a methodology for mapping (coastal) flood hazards was drafted (Figure 3.3), including
information on the uncertainties of flood mapping. Examples from other hazard mapping initiatives
and projects have been considered (e.g. DEFRA, 2006; FEMA, 2003) for drafting this concept and
links have been made to parallel European activities (EXCIMAP, 2007). The concept was tested and
further developed using data from the pilot site ‘Ebro delta coast’. The recommendations (FLOODsite
Report T03-08-03) are particularly relevant for coastal sedimentary environments, where the impact of
the storm can produce a significant morphodynamic response that will interact with the storm and can
affect the scale of the flooding (enhancing or reducing its effect). The guidelines concentrate on
coastal flood hazard mapping (because other EC Actions have dealt with fluvial flooding) and were
implemented for a practical case in the Ebro delta pilot area, where the emphasis was on the impact of
including the coastal morphodynamic response.
morphodynamic
feedback
wave data water level
data
beach profile floodplain

data DEM
Runup
R2%
total water level

ξt
overtopping
Q
inundated area
surface & depth
Figure 3.3 Methodology to generate a coastal flood hazard map
3.1.3 Results of FLOODsite for Risk Pathways

FLOODsite Tasks 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 covered scientific topics for Risk Pathways and dealt with
• failure modes of flood defence structures, including breaching of dikes and embankments,
• morphological changes in rivers and coasts;
• improvements of reliability tools; and
• recommendations for using flood inundation models
The following key results were achieved:
The principal result from Task 4 is FLOODsite Report T04-06-01: Failure mechanisms for flood
defence structures; however, other outputs from the individual areas of research also have direct
relevance to industry practice. A comprehensive review of failure modes of different flood defence
assets (Figure 3.4) has been performed and limit state equations (LSE) for further use in reliability
calculations have been formulated. By collating a definitive collection of failure modes, this work
supports system risk modelling, by helping to ensure common agreement on failure modes, their
representation and use; the report contains over 70 separate failure mode descriptions. The document
is structured to allow for easy updating and addition of failure modes hence will provide a working
framework that can be used and updated into the future as knowledge on failure modes develops.
Information is presented using a standard template format for each type of structure and load
combination. The scientific knowledge from Task 4 has been delivered through the FLOODsite work
on flood defence infrastructure reliability in Task 7.

17
Figure 3.4 Different types of flood defence assets
The research in Task 5 on coastal morphology has led to a number of new developments. These
include a stochastic model of beach plan shape variability, a regional model for regional scale
changes, a rapid coastal evolution model, beach overwash and dune erosion models. These have all
been used on actual sites, in order to illustrate their application. The stochastic model has been applied
to Christchurch Bay on the south coast of the UK. The regional model methodology for assessing the
coastal vulnerability to storm impacts has been applied to the Catalan coast, Spain. Storms on the
Catalan coast have been classified in terms of their inundation and erosion potential. The methodology
has been applied to the longest existing wave record in the Catalan coast for two different coastal
types. The rapid coastal evolution model is a fully integrated, dynamically linked coastal management
tool, GTI-SEAMaT, which is illustrated through an application to the shoreline of Calabria in Italy.
For beach overwash and dune modelling an analytical model to simulate dune erosion and dune foot
retreat during severe storms was further developed and tested. Four different data sets on dune
erosion, originating from the laboratory and the field, were employed to validate this model. An
analytical approach was formulated to describe the response of a dune to wave impact and overwash.
The approach has been applied to sites in the USA and the Ebro delta, Spain. The principal
deliverable from Task 5 is the FLOODsite report T05-07-02.
Task 6 deals with breaching of sea dikes and river embankments. For coastal areas, based on a detailed
review of existing literature, detailed models have been given to describe the breaching process from
both sides of sea dikes either under wave overtopping or wave impact loads, respectively. Large-scale
hydraulic model tests on breaching have also been performed to support the developed models and
provide further knowledge on breaching processes under different types of loading (Figure 3.5).
Numerical models have been developed or further advanced to describe the breaching processes
(Stanczak, 2008; D’Eliso, 2007). For river embankments, analysis of embankment soil state and
associated processes have led to the development of the next generation of HR BREACH and BRES

18
predictive models. The BRES model was further developed to address cohesive as well as non
cohesive materials (Zhu, 2006); the HR BREACH model (Morris et al, 2008) was refined and
extended to include multiple zoned structures (both cohesive and non cohesive, head-cut and surface
erosion).
Figure 3.5 Photograph taken during the large-scale model tests on dike breaching due to wave
overtopping
As part of this work, a detailed review of the earlier European IMPACT project breach field and
laboratory data was undertaken. Model development in FLOODsite builds upon that and other data.
Development and testing of the HR BREACH model was also undertaken in conjunction with the
CEATI Dam Safety Interest Group breach modelling project team, and hence links wider international
expertise and practice to the FLOODsite European programme for breach. The FLOODsite Report
T06-06-03 provides a comprehensive review of the current state of the art for modelling breach
initiation and growth processes. The review addresses current state of the art for modelling breach
initiation and growth, including wave induced initiation. Definitions of breaching processes are
provided and issues of relevance to end users identified. Integration of breach models with reliability
or system risk models is also considered.
Flood defence systems consist of many components or “elements”, and the overall reliability of the
flood defence system depends upon the reliability of each component. In Task 7 flood defence
systems of flood-prone areas have been represented by fault trees which provide the potential chain of
events leading to overall failure of flood defence function. An example is given in Figure 2.4. Failure
of the subsystems (dike, dune sluice, levee) of the system leads to flooding of the polder area. The
subsystems all consist of “elements” (e.g. sea dikes or river embankments can be divided in different
sections). Failure of any of these elements of the subsystem “dike 1” leads to flooding of the
hinterland. All failure modes of each element have the potential to lead to the overall failure of the
flood defence system as a whole. The most important failure modes have been addressed and modelled
in Task 4 of FLOODsite. Decision-making for flood risk management relies on an understanding of
the likelihood of existing or proposed flood defences failing under given hydraulic loadings. This is
often referred to as ‘fragility’. For probabilistic risk assessment methods, a probabilistic measure of
the structural performance is required. This is typically expressed as a fragility curve relating
‘loading’ to ‘probability of failure’. Combined with descriptors of decay or deterioration, fragility
curves can be generated that enable the likely future performance of the structure to be described.

19
Task 7 has worked on improving reliability methods for flood defences. This has been initiated by
comparing existing reliability models for three pilot sites (Scheldt estuary, Thames estuary, and
German Bight coast) and subsequently using different tools for the same site to identify
inconsistencies. Task 7 has implemented the new knowledge for failure modes of flood defences into a
new reliability tool (Figure 3.6) which is available for use within flood risk assessment systems.
Figure 3.6 Components of the RELIABLE software
In Task 8, five software packages commonly used for flood inundation modelling were compared by
developing models for different pilot sites. The models also were used to answer a number of
additional research questions, for instance related to the importance of modelling breach growth and
the impact of wind. The results were used to list a number of conclusions and to derive guidelines on
model choice and appropriate application of models. Typically, 1D models are used to accurately
represent linear features such as channels using detailed cross sections. 2D models are more
commonly used to solve problems of flow over broad shallow areas such as flood plains. Task 8
considered several modelling issues including:
• the spatial resolution of the model,
• the influence of breaches in flood defences,
• the effects of strong winds on water levels
• the effects of land use and land cover on the hydraulic resistance to the flow
The guidance document FLOODsite report T08-09-03) gives the practitioner an understanding of the
most appropriate model types for various applications and the way in which 1D and 2D can be linked
together to solve channel and floodplain flow problems.
3.1.4 Results of FLOODsite for Risk Receptors

Within Risk Receptors, Tasks 9, 10 and 11 of FLOODsite covered:
• socio-economic damages resulting from floods at coastal and in riverine and estuarine areas;
• so-called intangibles (loss of life, influence of early warning systems, ecological impact, and a
multi-criteria analysis as methodological foundation);
• risk perception, community behaviour, and social resilience
Task 9 had two main research activities:

• Country study and review of damage evaluation methods applied in European practice, and

20
• Producing “Evaluating flood damages: guidance and recommendations on principles and

methods” which was the main deliverable from Task 9 (FLOODsite report T09-06-01).
The Task 9 review showed that the four countries England, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and
Germany, which feature very different histories of flood policy and different institutional settings, use
sophisticated methods of flood damage evaluation. These in principle all follow the same idea,
namely trying to put economic values to elements of flood risk in order to estimate the benefits of
flood protection measures in terms of prevented flood damage. In detail, though, the methods exhibit
many different approaches. The major differences in flood damage evaluation methods relate to the
damage categories considered, the degree of detail, the scale of analysis, the application of basic
evaluation principles (e.g., replacement cost versus depreciated cost), and the application or non-
application of results in benefit-cost and risk analyses. This diversity of methods, even in riparian
states which share a major river, indicates that there is still a lack of transboundary co-operation in
flood policy decision-making in the EU. Furthermore, the country study unveiled some deficiencies in
current practice, for example that intangible damages like environmental and social effects are often
neglected or that some uncertainties exist with regard to the appropriate use of economic valuation
techniques. It therefore seems appropriate to strive towards harmonisation of damage evaluation
methods in order to create a sound scientific basis for future co-operation in transboundary flood
management and policy in the EU. Based on these results the guideline document (FLOODsite report
T09-06-01) was written to provide appropriate methods for the evaluation of different types of flood
damages but also to give recommendations on some basic principles of economic evaluation. The
guideline document provides fundamental standard knowledge, specifies key principles for economic
evaluation of damages and reveals the sources of uncertainty that need to be considered. This approach
has then been used and further elaborated within pilot sites of FLOODsite (River Elbe, the Tisza
River, the Thames Estuary, German Bight coast).
Task 10 has worked on innovative methods to understand, model and evaluate intangible flood
damages and other flood losses. This comprises a loss of life model, effects of flood warnings,
ecological issues, and multi-criteria analyses (MCA). Most of the activities in Task 10 deal with
riverine flooding since more data is available in this field. Loss of life modelling is calibrated with
data from UK and German rivers.
The Risk to Life research (Figure 3.7) took as a starting point the Flood Risk to People model
developed in the UK and assessed the applicability of this model for fluvial flood events in
Continental Europe, which tend to be more severe and life threatening. Data on flood events were
gathered from 25 locations across six European countries as well as data from an additional case study
in the UK. The most significant achievements include: identification of problems with the current UK
Risk to People model, e.g. when applied to cases with high Hazard and People Ratings, and
suggestions for refining the model; better understanding of the process of loss of life through analysis
of causes of flood-related deaths in Europe; reconfirmation of important factors leading to loss of life
that were statistically significant e.g. depth, velocity, building collapse, human behaviour; and
highlighting of the importance of systematic data collection. It suggests that a model for use
throughout Europe to predict numbers of deaths/injuries is problematic due to the lack of available and
reliable data. Overall, the research has increased the understanding of the factors surrounding
fatalities from flood events in the broader European context including the potential roles of building
collapse and human behaviour.
Task 10 also developed two modelling methodologies for quantifying the effects of different flood
warning lead times and mitigating actions with the associated reduction in damage costs. Firstly,
survey data was recalibrated using the original UK model which assesses the potential damages that
could be saved at an individual household level. This model was then refined for application within
the European context. Refinements were made on the basis of new data since the model’s inception
and the addition of the effect of evacuation of people on flood damages which was previously
excluded. This first method is for use with the detailed calculation of domestic household damage
savings. The second method, the “Flood Warning Response Benefits Pathway Model”, provides a
more flexible approach to incorporate several mitigation strategies. These methodologies are a

21
significant step forward in European flood risk management, since they allow the justification of
optimum flood warning systems on the basis of reduced flood damage costs. They also allow
quantification of the effectiveness of mitigation strategies for reducing damage costs. Guidance for
improving flood warning response among receptors is also provided alongside the methodologies.
This is a frequently overlooked but vital component of a successful flood warning system.
Figure 3.7 Schematic for mapping risk to life (Priest et al., 2007)
The research on toxic stress was based around the Optimal Modelling for Ecotoxicological
Assessment (OMEGA) framework. The framework was further enhanced and tested for use against
multiple pollutants in aggregating pollutant effects. The methodology allows the integration of water
quality and sediment modelling with the ecotoxicological response of receptors. The highest level of
output is given as a Potentially Affected Fraction (PAF) of the total population of interest. The
methodology is therefore intended as a tool for identifying areas particularly susceptible to flood
induced pollution. Significant achievements include:
• new knowledge on the application of Qualitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) in
environmental chemistry for acute aquatic toxicology;
• new software for combining flooding with sediment transport and sedimentation and combining
the prediction of spreading of different sources of toxic components;
• new insight on the specific toxic risks for groups of organisms;
• a better ecotoxicological model of acute and chronic toxic stress for a mixture of toxicants;
• a proof of concept model of a flooding of an dike ring in the Netherlands, calculating the
spreading and sedimentation of toxic components from a variety of sources (including flooding
specific sources); making it possible to take measures for high risk situations before a flooding
occurs or helping in determining where a clean up of contaminated soil is necessary after a flood.
The research Activity on GIS methodology for mapping risk to life focused on the development of a
GIS-based Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) methodology for the assessment and decision-making
process within flood risk management. The methodology focuses on economic, social and
environmental measures of risk, which are aggregated together to form a single risk metric. A raster-
based GIS-dataset for social, economic and environmental risk criteria was developed and various
MCA approaches were applied including: a disjunctive approach and an additive weighting approach.
Both these approaches were shown to be appropriate for use within the framework of MCA risk

22
mapping. An additive weighting approach was also developed which is applicable to show the spatial
distribution of benefits of certain risk reduction measures. The new methodology addresses
shortcomings in existing decision-making techniques and provides the possibility for evaluating
monetary and non-monetary flood risk in an integrated way, as well as showing their spatial
distribution and the uncertainties included. The research developed the FloodCalc software tool which
supports calculations and mapping of different damage and risk criteria as to how uncertainties can be
documented and dealt with.
Although in Task 11 the concept of risk perception was prominent in its title this concept proved to
have shortcomings. An important factor is the impossibility of perceiving a mental construct like
‘risk’. A more useful concept proved to be risk constructions, a broader term which also comprises
risk awareness and subjective perceptions of risk-related issues. The fact that people take any risk-
reducing measures implies that those people are both aware of the risk of being flooded and that they
attribute significance to the measures they take. In other words, they regard the measure they take as
meaningful in the hope that it will be effective. These perceptions and behaviours relate to people’s
social constructions of risk. Risk is neither simply attributed to a natural hazard nor an objectively
given constant. Rather, perceived risk is to be understood as being socially constructed in the sense
that people’s views, values, and belief systems all influence and possibly define it.
The research has led us to question many apparently compelling (and, from the perspective of flood
risk management, desirable) linear relationships. For example there are supposed links between
“being affected” and “having higher risk awareness” or “being affected” and “applying precautionary
measures”; however, real-life is much more diverse, contradictory and difficult to explain. On
investigating public involvement in flood risk management, we found a large number of residents
maintained that technocratic top-down approaches were dominant in flood management and judged
that “technicians” are the most influential actors in decision processes. Most of those surveyed did
not feel involved in the decision processes and tended to delegate responsibility – to agencies in
charge of flood prevention and mitigation. Thus, precautionary measures and flood defence are
primarily regarded as pertaining to public institutions. Public involvement allows the incorporation of
a factor that is often forgotten: local knowledge. Decrease in peoples’ adaptive capacity is triggered
by the progressive erosion of local knowledge; this knowledge concerns not only the locality
(morphology, dangerous areas, etc.), but also its management. It is fundamental for the residents not
only to understand how to behave in emergencies, but also to foresee and mitigate dangerous
occurrences. Residents lose the skill to recognise environmental signals, so that they become less
able (or likely) to undertake self-protection. From this perspective, risk assessment becomes an
integrated activity, which is open to different types of knowledge, be it disciplinary and not.
Moreover, effective flood risk management needs public involvement. Whilst the paradigm of flood
risk management is now firmly established within the scientific community and among flood-risk
managers, the population at risk retain more “traditional” assumptions about flood protection. Thus
placing greater responsibility on the general public is likely to be ineffective without new partnerships
and synergies between citizens and public institutions. Flood risk management is a great challenge for
practitioners, policy-makers and researchers who increasingly are required to talk to and with the
people at risk and, perhaps most importantly, to listen to them if the actual outcome is to include them
in decision-making processes and overall risk governance. Report T11-07-14 is the main deliverable
and provides recommendations from the research in Task 11.
3.2 Flood risk management

3.2.1 Introduction
Flood risk management is an approach to dealing with flood risk based on the notion that risks cannot
be eliminated and taken away entirely but only partially and always at the expense of other societal
goals. The aim of flood risk management is thus to reduce the consequences of floods, in ways that
balance this aim against a range of other considerations and priorities.

23
Flood risk management aims at preventing losses and damages by preventing flooding and/or by
preventing the exposure of people and property to flooding. This includes lowering the probability of
flooding as well as reducing the vulnerability of the society in flood-prone areas. Consequently, flood
risk management may involve a large number of measures, for example flood defence measures, flood
control measures, but also spatial planning and measures aimed at reducing the vulnerability of people
and susceptibility of property to damage. This is because single-measure management approaches do
not take advantage of the way that various measures can interact to reinforce each other. For example,
better spatial planning to keep urban and other vulnerable development out of hazard zones may mean
smaller scale engineering works to protect towns and villages. And adequate emergency response
during floods can reduce flood damage and thereby lower insurance premiums.
Flood risk management is not a one-off activity, such as building an embankment or a dam. It is a
continuous process, characterised by repeated activities: analysis of the flood risk, consideration of
measures and policy instruments to reduce the risk, making policy decisions, implementing measures
and instruments, monitoring their effects, etc. This permits constant adaptation to changing
circumstances and changing societal requirements.
Flood risk management (FRM) is essentially preventive, as it focuses on all possible floods – both
frequent and rare – in contrast to flood event (or incident) management (FEM or FIM), which is about
dealing with floods that are happening or are about to happen. But flood risk management (FRM) does
of course involve the development of flood warning systems or of insurance schemes that are essential
for flood event management, as these should operate all the time and not just during flood events.
Goals and aims of the FLOODsite research on flood risk management

Theme 2 in FLOODsite recognised the above notion of what flood risk management involves including the
fact that flood events cannot be reduced to zero, requiring preparation for events to happen. Six Research
tasks were formulated, three (Tasks 12 to 14) focussing on preventive flood risk management and three
(Tasks 15-17) on improved warning and response in the context of flood event management.
All Tasks focussed on methodologies rather than on empirical findings, and this is reflected in the advances
made. The degree of interdisciplinarity and integration of these six tasks differed substantially, related to
the aim of the task and the partners involved. We shall discuss the main outcomes for each task.
3.2.2 Learning from the past by evaluating measures and instruments in place:
a methodology
The main aim of Task 12 was to learn from the past by the ex-post evaluation of the performance of
individual structural and non-structural measures and policy instruments. Ex-post evaluation can close
the knowledge gap between past / current practice and future decisions in flood risk reduction.
To allow such an evaluation, a classification of all possible measures and instruments was needed, and a
thorough investigation and discussion on criteria to assess these by. The ex-post evaluation methodology is
the key outcome of this Task, but more concrete outcomes on the performance of individual measures and
instruments was gained by its testing in various pilot cases in Central Europe (Elbe, Odra and Tisza). The
main achievement is, therefore, academic, rather than practical at present. Only after thorough evaluation of
a wealth of existing measures and instruments, i.e. by adding lots of empirical data, can practical results be
expected.
The testing of the methodology in case studies proved that it could be applied, but that the interpretation of
the relevant assessment criteria is not without problems. And it was also confirmed that the performance of
measures and instruments depends on the context in which they are applied (even if all fluvial). This fact
hampers drawing general conclusions too soon. Still, the main achievement of the task is that measures and
instruments of widely varying character, from changed agricultural practice, via insurance to flood-
proofing of individual houses and retention polders, to flood walls and huge storm surge barriers can now
in principle be assessed by the very same criteria.

24
The task was interdisciplinary in the sense that it drew knowledge and approaches from technical sciences,
economy, ecology and geography. The quantification of risk was according to the methods described in the
former section. The lists of measures and instruments and some results were shared with task 14.
The long-list of possible measures and instruments was based on earlier research and transferred into a
database structure. Most attention, however, was given to the criteria by which to evaluate the past and
present performance of measures and instruments. These included hydraulic, economic, ecological and
social criteria, but the prime evaluation criteria were:
• Effectiveness (relation to risk reduction objectives)
• Efficiency (like the former, but then in relation to costs)
• Robustness (in light of uncertainty)
• Flexibility (adaptability, in light of changing circumstances and global change)
Effectiveness describes the extent to which the objectives of an intervention are achieved. It is thus
dependent on the availability of objectives for an intervention. Being also the traditional focus of
evaluation, effectiveness analysis constitutes a core element of ex-post evaluation.
In the light of changing societal priorities and considering financial limitations, the question of
economic efficiency is raised. In simple terms can be determined by relating economic (financial) costs
and benefits to obtain the benefit/cost ratio. The benefit/cost ratio is a measure of how economically
resources are converted to results. Benefits are represented by observed intended economic (financial)
effects. Costs are expressed by intended and unintended as well as direct and indirect realisation,
operation and maintenance costs of the intervention.
Robustness describes the ability of a measure or instrument to sustain the intended serviceability over
a wide range of known and unknown changes of conditions. Interventions are supposed to deliver their
intended effects under different magnitudes or dynamics of flooding or climatic and societal changes.
For example, a scheme introduced to protect against floods up to the 100 years event in future due to
different reasons may be hit more frequently by a design event. Or, encroachment into the floodplain
may substantially increase vulnerability and thus the risk in a flood prone area. An intervention
applied to reduce risks should be able to ensure the tolerability of risk in different situations unless the
investment it becomes obsolete.
Flexibility describes a project’s operational and long term adaptability. Changes of conditions
modifications may require adaptation of applied interventions. The reasons for these conditional
changes may be various ranging from a new hazard situation to changed risk perception and connected
expectations of ‘safety’. Thus, flexibility can be an important criterion also to decide on most
appropriate options in many cases.
3.2.3 A strategy research viewpoint on Flood risk management

Task 13 focused on strategies and strategy development for long-term preventive Flood Risk
Management (FRM) from a social science viewpoint, a strategy research viewpoint in particular. To
this end, it delved deep into the wealth of social science literature on strategy, where strategy – in
general – is defined as a consistent combination of long-term goals, aims, and measures as well as
process patterns, a combination which is continuously adapted to the changing societal context.
Strategy can thus be understood as encompassing content (“Deciding what to do”), process (“Deciding
how to do it”), and context (“Aligning strategic decisions with internal and external conditions”).
Task 13 focused on the process dimension of FRM, which made the task complementary to work in
other tasks on flood risk management, which all put the content central. Consequently, however, and
unfortunately, the integration with the remainder of the research work within FLOODsite hence
remained loose. However, it gives a clear pointer to the challenges that will be encountered when
trying to set flood risk management within the wider context of the governance of all the societal
demands.

25
The different language (jargon) used in this field of research as well as the more academic and less
practical character of it hampered discussions or uptake by the natural and technical scientists who
formed the majority of FLOODsite’s community. And indeed, one might judge that the main outcome
of the task lies in the thorough exploration and discussion of which theoretical ‘modes of planning’
apply best to the real-life situation of flood risk management planning in practice. And whereas the
research does not reveal any really new facts about flood risks or their management, it does give
insight in the many different views among scientists on the complex issue of planning: the task’s
innovation lies in taking another perspective to FRM.
Task 13 highlights challenges of strategy-making as linear and adaptive process of politicians and
officials (key decision-makers). It complements the content-oriented approach of Task 14, the focus
on ex-post evaluation of measures in Task 12, and the citizen-oriented approach in Task 11. Research
results fed into different tasks, Task 21 (Pilot study Elbe River) in particular.
A first important outcome of task 13 is a set of related concepts, which in conjunction may help to
bridge the gap between academic theory and practical experience. This involved four concepts:
1. a multidimensional understanding of strategy for FRM,
2. the distinction between a linear and an adaptive model of strategy for FRM,
3. strategic planning to bridge different spatial levels and policy fields, and
4. learning as complex process to use existing knowledge (“exploitation”) and to generate new
knowledge (“exploration”) to cope with uncertainty
In textbooks Strategic planning is often described as a linear process of designing and assessing
strategic alternatives to realize overall goals, aims and specific targets. Based on a multidimensional
understanding of strategy and the distinction between linear and adaptive models of strategy as well as
case study results, Task 13 developed the following two statements to deploy strategic planning for
long-term FRM:
• Strategic planning is an umbrella concept for content- and process-oriented approaches to long-
term FRM.
• Strategic planning facilitates travelling across spatial levels and between policy fields. Therefore,
it contributes to FRM as holistic and continuous process.
Figure 3.8: Three dimensions of strategies for FRM

26
Secondly, a several principles for long-term FRM strategy making were formulated, namely:
1. Nurture diversity in decision-making: This notion of “requisite variety” in complexity science can
be applied to some extent to FRM. Nurturing diversity is important for the content, processes, and
context conditions of long-term FRM: Diversity of contents relates to the range of aims and targets
and the range of measures (e.g., structural and diverse non-structural measures like spatial planning
to control development on flood plains). Nurturing diversity in process patterns involves, among
others, using strategic planning as an adaptive process of highly political character. Nurturing
diversity in context conditions includes sharing of management power and responsibility and
involving multiple institutional linkages. This holds true especially for very complex governance
conditions like in the Thames Estuary.
2. Embrace uncertainty and change: Long-term planning in the context of FRM necessarily involves
dealing with considerable uncertainties. Effective risk reduction measures like spatial planning
require long-term planning horizons. One major challenge therefore seems to be making best use of
learning about uncertainties from previous experience or future scenarios. Perhaps the most
important result of Task 13 is that embracing uncertainty and change in long-term planning of
FRM is not only about looking at distant futures. It is also about a continuous effort to balance
exploration and exploitation within a complex social process which is prone to manifold
interruptions and limitations.
3. Combine the range of existing knowledge systems into the decision-making process: Decision-
makers focus their attention through formulating and implementing strategies for FRM. However,
strategies should not dilute, homogenise or diminish the diversity of existing knowledge systems
for management (knowledge with regard to physical processes, engineering, social processes,
strategic alternatives, and so forth).
4. Create opportunity for self-organisation to generate new knowledge: successful decision-makers

continuously test, learn and modify their activities and understanding for coping with change and
uncertainty. Learning includes monitoring and evaluation. More specifically, adaptive management
can be understood as an experimental approach based on iterative cycles of intervention,
monitoring, and evaluation to generate new knowledge.
Thirdly, Task 13 investigated whether and to what extent these principles were applied in case studies,
incorporating the Dresden / Weisseritz River, the London / Thames estuary and the Trento/ Adige
River. Based on these cases, Task 13 concluded that the four principles to make strategy for long-term
FRM are quite easy to understand, but obviously difficult to implement. Difficult because strategy
making is not only a rational science-and-technology-driven process based on a common “language”
and common interests, but instead a political process based partly on different perceptions and world
views (e. g., between local flood risk managers and planners) and diverging interests (e. g., embracing
uncertainty vs. restoring order). As a consequence, understanding and steering governance becomes
important for FRM.
3.2.4 Towards Sustainable Flood Risk Management under Global Change

Flood risk management requires policy making for the long term. This means policy making for a
relatively far and largely unknown future affected by climate change, demographic change, economic
change etc.. It implies dealing with many uncertainties and many possible futures. It also means that
different FRM policy alternatives must be examined and evaluated on their contribution to sustainable
development. This is primarily a task for flood risk management practitioners, but what the best (or a
good) methodology to do so is, is a question for research: how can flood risk management science help
the decision makers making rational and well-thought decisions? It is our conviction that this is best
done by holding a mirror to the decision makers which shows them the consequences of their
decisions for all relevant realms of sustainability: IF …, THEN….

27
In many research projects for policy planning strategic alternatives for long-term policy making are
being developed and evaluated. Their assessment nowadays often involves assessing their
performance in different future scenarios. Task 14 of FLOODsite aimed to provide methodological
guidance on how to perform the design/ development of long term strategic alternatives for flood risk
management and their assessment.
The main outcome of the task research is, therefore, the procedure depicted in Figure 3.9, which can
be regarded as the graphic summary of the key methodological guidance on how to proceed when
developing and assessing long-term flood risk management strategies. In Figure 3.9, the blocks
represent the different steps within the method. The arrows represent the connections between
different steps).
Specify area of Define future

System exploration: area
interest, relevant scenarios
characteristics and potential
time-scales
developments
Analysis of current
flood risk Current flood risk analysis Future flood risk analysis
management & assessment & assessment
strategy
Definition of strategic alternatives

Analysis of strategic
alternatives
Analysis and assessment of future flood risks

in different strategic alternatives
Full assessment of both the Full assessment and comparison of

current strategy and strategic alternatives
alternatives
Figure 3.9 Schematic overview of the method for developing and assessing long-term flood risk
management strategies in view of uncertain futures
The criteria for assessing the alternatives’ sustainability have been given due consideration which led
to a better understanding of the relevant assessment criteria. Especially on the criteria robustness and
flexibility new insights have been gained; this can be regarded a second key outcome.
This procedure was followed in three case studies in order to test it, namely on the Thames Estuary, on
the Western Scheldt Estuary and finally on the Elbe river. The results for these case studies have direct
policy relevance for the flood risk managers of those areas. They can be regarded a third key outcome.
Because this kind of research has huge societal relevance (perhaps it is the most relevant of all
FLOODsite research), the approach was also (partly) adopted for some large national research

28
projects, such as Thames2100 in the UK, investigating the future of the FRM policy for the Thames,
and the Netherlands 2nd Sustainability Outlook and the Water Safety 21st Century project in the
Netherlands. This can be regarded as direct spin-off of the work of FLOODsite.
Finally, the procedure strongly affected the work in Task 18 on technological integration, where the
procedure was transformed into a computer-based Discussion Support System with prototypes for
again Thames, Scheldt and Elbe.
The procedure and scenario approach

The method to develop and assess long-term flood risk management strategies relies on purposefully
combining top-down developed strategic alternatives with different future scenarios, and the full
assessment of their contribution to the sustainable development of the region involved. The procedure
consists of the following steps:
• System exploration (area characteristics and potential developments), including the definition of
scenarios which are down-scaled to the region involved;
• Analysis and preliminary assessment of the current flood risk management strategy, at present and
in the future (for the various scenarios);
• Development and analysis of strategic alternatives;
• Full assessment of the current strategy and strategic alternatives.
The three key elements scenarios, strategic alternatives and assessment, are incorporated in these
steps. The most important findings on the use of scenarios, the development of strategic alternatives
and their full assessment are discussed below.
Although, in reality, management planning is a cyclic process, figure.1 depicts it as a linear process
which starts with an exploration of the flood risk system and ends with a full assessment of strategic
alternatives. In practice, alternatives may be adapted when unfavourable results are obtained or
additional alternatives may be added halfway. Also, various iterations between design and analysis are
likely. However, in order to clearly show the main procedure and relationships the figure is kept
simple.
The first two steps in this procedure, obviously, closely relate to things discussed in earlier chapters:
the definition of the relevant flood risk system (Ch. 2) and the analysis and assessment of the flood
risk applying the methods described earlier (Section 3.1). A difference is that the focus is not only on
the present flood risk to people and property, but also on possible future risks as a function of
changing climate, demography and economy. To cover for these ‘global’ and local changes in time
outside the influence of the flood risk manager, a scenario approach is advocated, based on thorough
literature review and practical experience (EU, UK Foresight, NL amongst others). This is the first
innovative point in comparison to anything discussed before.
The next step is about the design of strategic alternatives; by content (in contrast to what task 13
focused on). If the flood risks are not acceptable now or in the future – or when the current strategy
has other major disadvantages –, various strategic alternatives for flood risk management may be
developed. The research produced guidance on how to design those alternatives, comprising technical,
regulatory, financial and communicative instruments.
The assessment criteria

The research put a lot effort in drawing up a full set of criteria for assessing the sustainability of the
different strategic alternatives for flood risk management, allowing their assessment for all possible
future scenarios. This not only includes an assessment of flood risks, but also of all the other
consequences of the alternatives for the man-environment system in which the alternative is to be
implemented.
The set of assessment criteria (Table 3.1) thus covers both the intended effects in terms of the changed
flood risk and the unintended side-effects of implementing the strategic alternative on social,

29
economic and ecological functioning of the system, as well as criteria which specifically pertain to
‘dealing with uncertainties’.
Table 3.1 The framework of criteria and indicators for a full assessment
Sustainability field Criterion Indicators

People Casualty risk EANC (casualties/yr)
(socio-psychological Personal intangible flood impacts (stress, EANAP (affected persons /yr)
effects) loss of personal belongings, illness, etc.)
Equity -
Planet Landscape quality -
(ecological effects) Nature -
Profit Implementation costs Present value of costs (€)
(economic effects) Economic risk Present value of risk reduction
compared to the do-nothing
strategy (€), or EAD (€/yr)
Economic opportunities -
Sensitivity to Robustness -
uncertainties Flexibility -
In the context of long-term planning for global change, robustness and flexibility are both very
important criteria since they reveal the sensitivity of strategic alternatives to uncertain events and
gradual or sudden changes. Robust strategic alternatives are less sensitive to uncertain events such as
very extreme water levels, malfunctioning of structures, malfunctioning communication systems,
unforeseen behaviour amongst the inhabitants, etc. Flexible strategic alternatives function well across
a range of future scenarios or can be easily adapted if future developments differ from the ones
anticipated. Future regret is thus less likely when such flexible strategic alternatives are being adopted.
Although important progress has been made on understanding what robustness and flexibility are, their
operationalisation still requires more thought.
What the trials revealed

The cases studies especially aimed at trying the procedure; that is their scientific merit we shall go into
here. Further, they have yielded practical insights into the possibilities of various measures and
instruments in the specific cases. These results are relevant for the local, regional and national flood
risk managers, and shall not be discussed here.
The use of scenarios was found to be useful, because:

• It shows that the functioning of the strategic alternatives differs per future scenario;
• It thus shows that taking into account the uncertainty about the future is important, since strategic
alternatives may function well in one scenario, while they do not in other scenarios;
• There are strategic alternatives which function reasonably well in various future scenarios or which
can easily be adapted to different scenarios.
In order to show possible ways of coping with flood risks different strategic alternatives need to be
defined and assessed. These strategic alternatives must be visionary and clearly different. Therefore, it
is advocated to define them top-down from guiding principles to select combinations of measures and
instruments. As guiding principles, for example, ‘world views’ (‘perspectives’) or the concepts of
resilience and resistance may be used.
The trials in Thames and Schelde Estuaries also showed that strategic alternatives are a good means to
explore possibilities for long-term flood risk management. Important findings are, e.g. that a FRM
policy which functions well in one scenario, does not necessarily do so in another with, for example,
less economic growth. And some alternatives never score the best, but neither do they hold the risk of

30
terrible failure if developments are other than expected. This is highly relevant for policy makers
trying to define a sustainable policy in the context of uncertainty.
3.2.5 Remote sensing of rainfall and improved flash-flood warning

Flash floods rise rapidly and suddenly. These floods typically occur in streams and small river basins
with a drainage area of a few hundred square kilometres or less. Only two things can be done against
flash floods:
• keep out of their way, and (for those who cannot keep out of their way permanently)
• provide effective warning
This makes flood warning the primary policy instrument for the management of flash floods during
the event. Through the images from national weather forecast services in most countries and on many
public internet sites, many people are acquainted with satellite imagery of cloud cover as well as radar
rainfall fields. These show where rainfall can be expected, but estimating how much water is likely to
fall is more complicated and difficult. The characteristics of flash floods provide a substantial
challenge flood forecasting, mainly because operational atmospheric models are too generally coarse-
scaled (typically around 10km grid resolution), and because many small basins are not equipped with
rain gauges. It is therefore unrealistic to expect high forecast reliability for localised thunderstorms
occurring on small and medium size watersheds. However, flash flood forecasts do not necessarily
need to be precise to be of practical use. Indeed, Task 16 has demonstrated that effective flash flood
warnings may be issued without the use of detailed rainfall-runoff models.
Task 15 in FLOODsite focussed an important element of flash-flood forecasting; improving

quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) from remote sensing technologies. The research covered
ground-based sensing by weather radar and use of satellite sensors from the Meteosat 6 and 8
platforms and concentrated on improving the algorithms used to translate the imagery into relevant
output. Both radar hydrology and satellite rainfall estimation have been active areas of science in
national and international programmes and the FLOODsite research built upon earlier advances, for
example those in the cluster of Framework 5 projects (see http://www.actif-ec.net/ ).
In Task 15 a set of improved methods has been developed and piloted for QPE from radar imagery,
building on earlier intensive observational campaigns (Delrieu, 2008). Improvements in the
interpretation of the radar imagery have been made on several fronts including:
• a technique to identify the “ground clutter” caused by reflection of radar beams from locally high
ground
• adaptation of two rain-type separation algorithms
• estimation, conditional on the rain type, of the vertical profile of radar reflectivity
• rainfall estimation at ground level from corrected reflectivities above
• a stochastic model of range profiles of rain-drop size distributions to test the sensitivity of
attenuation correction schemes to the variability in drop-size.
These contributions of Task 15 have led to improvements in the interpretation of ground-based radar
data which directly affect the work of Météo France, who co-operated in the research.
There is the basic problem with satellite data which derives from sensors that can only scan the top of
clouds and are unable to see which processes go on further inside and below a cloud. Therefore the
rain rates have to be estimated from the temperature and reflectivity of the cloud tops. Currently used
algorithms were also developed for other satellites or regions and are not directly applicable to
Meteosat-6/-8 without adjustments to its different spectral responses and spatial and temporal
resolution.
Differences between the radar and satellite rain rates may also result from the different spatial
resolution of the radar data and Meteosat-6/-8 as well as from the different scanning time. Task 15
considered sources of error and uncertainty causing discrepancies between radar and satellite derived
rain rates. The work revealed (Görner et al, 2008) that the satellite based rainfall estimation still

31
includes several uncertainties when compared with ground-based observations. These differences
concern the size and location of the rain field area as well as the amount of the estimated rain rates.
However, the structure of the radar rain field is partly distinguishable in the satellite estimated rain
fields. All of the algorithms used show a tendency to underestimate the rain rates measured by radar
for the grid cells having rain rates over 10 mm/h. For the areas with less or no radar derived rain a
tendency of overestimation is evident for all techniques. Both tendencies are partly a consequence of
the relocation of the satellite rain field. This relocation may result from the different scanning angle of
the two systems radar and satellite, the different points in scanning time and processes and influences
(wind, moisture etc.) between the cloud top and the earth surface. Differences between the radar and
satellite rain rates also result from the different spatial resolution as well as from the different points in
time of the measurement and scan. Nevertheless the satellite derived rain rates already can provide
helpful additional information on rainfall, particularly in regions low or not covered by ground
measurements.
Task 16 in FLOODsite aimed to

• provide a comprehensive overview over the state-of-the-art of flash flood forecasting and warning
and
• improve these methods
In this context, it investigated whether the methods of Flash-Flood Guidance (FFG), an approach
developed in the US, might help increase the reliability of flash flood warning, in comparison to
rainfall-runoff modelling and in comparison to various other approaches. The FFG approach is a
relatively straightforward comparison of rainfall amount with pre-determined thresholds which are
known to cause flooding. The FFG is the depth of rain of a given duration, taken as uniform in space
and time on a certain basin, necessary to cause some flooding at the outlet of the basin concerned.
This rainfall depth, which is computed based on a lumped hydrological model, is compared to either
real-time observed or forecast rainfall of the same duration and on the same basin. If the predicted
rainfall depth is greater than the FFG (i.e., the Flash Flood Threat – FFT - is greater than a given
threshold), then flooding in the basin is likely (see Figure 3.10). Thus direct flood alerts can be
triggered from rainfall measurement or prediction. Based on the comparison of predicted rainfall
amount and threshold, a warning can be issued.
Catchment Flash Flood Guidance Catchment Flash Flood Threat
Figure 3.10 Sample graphical system output for FFG and FFT
The study provided an assessment of this technique based on data from eleven basins (six nested
included in five larger parent basins) located in north-eastern Italy and central France. The results
show improvement in terms of probability of detection and false alarm rate (Borga, 2008) over a static
rainfall threshold alone to trigger an alarm. The FFG approach has been implemented into the
operational system for flood forecasting in the Adige River Flood Forecasting System in Italy.

32
Overall the outcome of Task 16 is improved insight into the advantages and disadvantages of various
approaches to flash flood forecasting. Not each technique was equally suited for each basin, because
of different availability of data and basin characteristics, but the Task yielded useful guidance on
which approach to favour under different circumstances. In particular, the concept of Flash Flood
Guidance can help considerably in the communication between hydrologists, meteorologists and
decision makers.
3.2.6 Supporting Evacuation Planning and Traffic Management

Whereas in the context of flood event management planning Tasks 15 and 16 focussed on the warning
for floods, Task 17 looked into tools that could assist with formulating emergency management plans,
especially on evacuation and traffic management. For lowland river floods the work mainly
concentrated on the problems involved in evacuating people, whilst for flash flood catchments a
prototype system was developed to forecast which parts of the road network would become inundated.
Evacuation involves people moving to ‘safe’ locations, out of the flood risk area where they are able to
shelter until it is appropriate for them to return. Some of the results from the evacuation modelling
carried out for Task 17 were used in the prototype decision support of Task 19.
The work encompassed a review of flood event management practice in Europe; a review of the
requirements for evacuation planning based on end user consultation; an overview of evacuation
modelling; and the development and testing of evacuation and traffic management models relevant to
flood event management in the Thames Estuary in the UK, the Schelde Estuary in the Netherlands and
the Gard Region of France.
The study focused on the many possible ways of modelling of evacuations and aimed to assess which
models are most suitable to support evacuation planning. The various approaches to modelling were
tested by applying them to case study areas along the Thames Estuary in the UK (Canvey Island,
Thamesmead embayment), and along the Western Scheldt in the Netherlands. The testing of the tools
encompassed not only their validation but also their functionality and the usefulness of the results that
they provide to emergency responders and flood event managers. This yielded clear guidelines on
which approach to use under which circumstances. For the Gard Region in France a prototype system
to forecast road inundation was developed.
Review and testing of evacuation models
The first key outcome of Task 17 is the result of the review of evacuation models used worldwide for a
range of hazards (including technological hazards such as nuclear accidents). These included at three
spatial scales: micro-scale, meso-scale and macro-scale:
• Traffic simulation models;
• Evacuation behaviour models;
• Time-line and critical path management diagrams.
It was found that there has been little work undertaken in Europe, or the rest of the world, related to
evacuation modelling for flood event management. Previous work carried out in Europe has been
generally limited in scope and carried out a macro- and mesoscale, never at a micro-scale. Three
evacuation models were tested in the Thamesmead embayment and Canvey Island, these were:
• BC Hydro Life Safety Model (LSM) – a micro level model;
• A non-linear optimisation technique – a meso scale model;
• A simple spreadsheet based model – a macro scale model.
This revealed that the LSM has the potential to be used to inform emergency plans for heavily
defended areas (e.g. London, some coastal areas) and dam failure risk assessments. It allows the
assessment of location and the number of safe havens; effect of road closures; rate of dissemination of
warning; time of day and the location of the population; number of fatalities and injuries. The BC
Hydro LSM micro level model combines evacuation modelling with estimates of loss of life and
injuries to people, as well as the number of buildings that could collapse.

33
Such a model provides information that is useful to two different sets of stakeholders, in that it
provides information that is of use to the emergency planners and it also allows flood risk managers to
estimate the residual risk behind flood defences or downstream of dams in terms of the risk to people
and buildings.
The LSM was found to be a powerful tool. However, it was tested to its limits and at present cannot
deal with more than around 50,000 individual receptors. This is the first time a micro-level evacuation
model that dynamically links the movement of the receptors (e.g. people and vehicles) with the flood
wave has been applied to tens of thousands of receptors in a European situation.
For the area bounding the Westerschelde Estuary, a number of evacuation models were also tested;
these were EC, ESCAPE and INDY. None of the models model individual movement of persons,
instead they model the flows of total number of inhabitants from each postal code zone. The large
number of inhabitants in this area requires such meso or macro-scale modelling.
The models were compared on spatial scale they can be applied on; suitability for evacuation
planning; resulting evacuation times; and reliability of the results. This translates into guidelines on
their use. As the model results could not be compared with actual evacuation times from a historical
event, it is difficult to conclude which model is the most reliable., but all three models are expected to
underestimate the evacuation time as they rely on the assumptions that no congestion occurs from
cross flow traffic, that no accidents will occur, and that residents will respond to an evacuation call in
an ideal and optimal way.
The review and testing revealed that evacuation modelling for flood events in most EU countries falls
outside the remit of flood risk managers. The lessons learnt from the piloting of the model indicates
that emergency managers often require micro level tools to provide them with the information they
require to formulate and improve their emergency plans. In some EU countries (e.g. UK and the
Netherlands) the data required for such models are readily available. However, there will be many
countries and regions where such data are not available.
Prototype system to forecast road inundation

A key issue that was raised by the majority of emergency response organisations consulted was the
need to be able to predict when roads and other routes in an “at risk” area would be cut off by
floodwater. In areas subject to flash floods, such as the Gard Region of France, people are often killed
when their vehicles are swept off the road by a flood and the emergency services are regularly not able
to get to people at risk quickly owing to the fact that they are not able to forecast which routes will be
impassable. A prototype flash flood warning system was developed for the Gard Region incorporating
methods for the FP6 ORCHESTRA project, in order to
1. identify the road inundation potential based on local geographical information,
2. develop rainfall-runoff models on the catchments located upstream of the identified points prone to
flooding, and
3. combine the flooding potential of roads with the estimated flood discharges in order to achieve an
integrated tool which allows to forecast in real time the flooding of roads
The blue area in Figure 3.11 depicts one of the submerged roads, based on the output of the prototype
model on flash floods developed for the Gard Region. The red line shows the road section that has
become unavailable as a result of the flooding. The points labelled “A” and “B” indicate the start and
the end point of the route. These can be selected by the user. After the user has chosen their start and
endpoint they can request a “route calculation” and, if the route intersects with a submerged road the
routing algorithm will calculate the next best route.

34
B
B
A
A
Shortest route between two points Shortest route between two points
closed by a flash flood
B
A Start point
A
Revised route found by the web based
algorithm between the two points
B End point closed by a flash flood
Figure 3.11 Application of the ORCHESTRA web tools to the Gard Region of France
The work achieved by the collaboration between the ORCHESTRA and FLOODsite projects
illustrated that it was possible to form a link between two models that had been developed
independently. The combination offers a useful risk management solution. The work also
demonstrates that if open standards are applied, added value can be created for the end user in terms of
an easy “plug-in” of other modules.
The prototype flash flood forecasting model set up for the Gard Region of France allows the
emergency services to have a better idea of which roads will remain open and which will be shut
before a flood occurs. Its success depends on having a database of historical road inundations with
which the model can be validated. In the case of the Gard Region of France, from an emergency
planning point of view, forecasting the time at which the road becomes impassable accurately proved
actually more important than predicting the peak flood flow accurately.
Recommendations for practice from Task 17

The applied research in Task 17 has led to some important conclusions which could reduce residual
flood risks by better emergency management.
• There is a need for flood risk managers to incorporate evacuation modelling as part of their flood
event management work. Currently evacuation models are rarely used to inform flood emergency
plans developed by emergency planners in Europe.
• It is important that flood risk managers work more closely with emergency planners. The split of
responsibilities between organisations that undertake water management and those that undertake
emergency planning means that in some cases neither organisation wishes to be responsible for
carrying out evacuation modelling.

35
• Macro-scale evacuation models are useful for obtaining first order estimates of evacuation times
for relatively large areas.
• Meso and micro scale models are needed for detailed evacuation planning.
• From the work carried out it would appear that micro-scale models, although more time consuming
to set up, provide emergency planners and other end users with more insight into the areas at
greatest risk and also provide decision makers with other risk metrics (e.g. number of buildings that
have collapsed loss of life, inundation of escape routes). However, to be effective such models
should be applied to the whole area at risk.
Although Task 17 has demonstrated the potential of evacuation modelling for more effective
emergency management, more work needs to be carried out to make evacuation models easier to use
by non-specialists to encourage their widespread use.
3.3 Supporting integrated decisions and associated decision support tools

3.3.1 Introduction
The European Directive on the assessment and management of flood risk reinforces a risk based
approach as being fundamental to good decision making. Theme 3 of FLOODsite had the aim:
“To provide decision makers with an improved ability to analyse, understand and manage the
flooding system in an integrated manner.”
In doing so it is recognised that different decisions have different constraints and opportunities and
hence are specific tools. Hence within FLOODsite two specific decision types are considered:
• Frameworks for long term planning (Task 18)
• Flood event management (Task 19)
Although these decisions are separated according to their context, they do share many common
features. Indeed within FLOODsite the conceptual and associated discussion support system (DSS)
tools share many similarities; with each adopting the Source-Pathway-Receptor concepts and similar
modes of user interaction with the prototype tools developed.
Underlying all good decision making is however the notion that our knowledge is not prefect and the
world around exhibits significant natural variability. Good decision making is that about recognising
this uncertainty and making wise robust choices. Uncertainty is not therefore an abstract concept but
one that is fundamental to good decision making:
“Uncertainty is the rationale doubt as which choice to make” (Colin Green, personal
communication.)
FLOODsite recognises this and advances our ability to understand the uncertainty in the decision
making (supporting robust long term planning) and provides advances techniques for the propagation
of uncertainty through complex forecast models. The supporting research is provided through Task 20
on uncertainty frameworks.
The activities within Theme 3 built upon and extend the science developed in other Tasks and were:
• User orientated – focusing of key decisions of interest
• Case study based – throughout case studies have been used to aid the development of practical
science
• Innovative – integrated, risk and systems based concepts challenging concepts. Floodsite has made
significant advances towards future implementation in practice.
The scientific advances within each of Tasks 18, 19 and 20 as well as the overarching concept of
integrated flood risk management, that has characterised the work within FLOODsite, are also
explored and summarised below.

36
3.3.2 Long term planning – concepts, theories and tools

Introduction
Long-term planning is an integral part of developing sustainable flood risk management polices and
intervention measures. In particular, it enables decisions makers to explore strategies, set targets,
question the status quo and determine the merits of innovative ideas. FLOODsite has focused on two
key aspects:
• Providing a structured conceptual framework of developing future scenarios of external change (for
example climate and socio-economic change) and flood risk management options.
• Through appropriate tools, supporting decision makers (including policy makers, their technical
advisors and the general public) in integrating information on hazard processes, vulnerability and
mitigation measures and the evaluation of alternative long-term flood risk management strategies.
A structured long term planning framework

The advances made within Task 18 have been considered at three levels: conceptual, methodological
and technological. Each of these frameworks has been developed in accordance with the Source-
Pathway-Receptor-Consequence model, which has been adopted throughout FLOODsite. In
developing the frameworks three pilot sites have been considered, the Schelde coastal area, the
Thames Estuary and the Elbe River Basin.
The conceptual framework is a high-level view of the long-term planning process which seeks to
understand the full range of questions that different stakeholders may pose to support their long-term
planning needs. As illustrated in Figure 3.12, this includes:
• development of a knowledge base on flood risk issues;
• an overview of the relationship between flood risk management and the development of natural and
societal systems (landscapes, social acceptance, local economy);
• a review of the organisational structures and institutions across Europe together with the regulatory,
economic and socio-cultural conditions in which they operate;
• an overview of societal needs and long term perception of risks;
• an overview of available strategic options (including mixed resistance and resilience based
strategies).
Decision making and development process of actors with their strategies
Measures and
Risk Analysis Risk Assessment instruments
Risk perception
Hazard Vulnerability Pre- Flood Post-

determination determination flood event flood
Cost Benefits
of damages of use
or measures
Determination Weighing Strategic alternatives

of flood risk flood risk for flood risk mitigation
Figure 3.12: Framework of flood risk management (after Schanze, 2005)

37
The methodological framework is a translation of the conceptual framework into tangible algorithms,
methods and component interactions (see Figure 3.13 below). Implicit within this is the need to
develop future climatic and socio-economic scenarios and to characterise the management response
through time (strategic alternatives) and hence the evaluation of these responses in an uncertain future,
building on the Task 14 work. In Task 18, specific methods are set-out to address option robustness,
flexibility and sustainability and the integration of these concepts through time and across ‘all’
possible future scenarios. Uncertainty is addressed in terms of that arising from methods, models and
data as well as the more gross uncertainty associated with the future. Emphasis is also placed on how
best to present the information (including uncertainty) to form a useful evidence-base for the decision
maker.
Source Module
External Driver Module
Management Response
Cost of interventions
DSS input databases
Pathway Module
Uncertainty throughout process
Receptor Module
Consequence
Risk Module
Decision Support
Information to decision makers e.g. plots, tables, animations
Figure 3.13 Overview of processes steps within the methodological framework
The technological framework considers the development of prototype tools used to enact the methods
and algorithms through a specific application which may involve development of specific software
modules or computer-based tools to execute the methods and display the output risk metrics. In
support of the development of the FLOODsite tools, existing tools were reviewed and compared.
Three prototype tools were developed in FLOODsite. Each tool is specifically tailored towards the
needs of the local end users in the Thames, Scheldt and Elbe, see Figure 3.14
Although different in architecture they share several common principles:

• An ability to explore the impact of change – either external or management responses.
• The ability to explore multi-staged management responses
• An ability to assess the sustainability of a given strategic alternative against a number of metrics
including (building on Task 14):
• Robustness: the ability of a given strategic alternative to perform well in the context of all
possible futures.
• Flexibility: the ability of a given strategic alternative to adapt following monitoring and
observation of what actually does happens. For example, if high sea-level rise occurs by year
2030, the management interventions from this point onwards would follow one with measures
appropriate to high sea-level rise. Sustainability: the ability of a strategic alternative to meet
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

38
own needs. This is typically linked to robustness and flexibility as well as social, ecological and
economic considerations.
• Resilience: the ability of the system to withstand hazards or extreme events (larger than the
design criteria) or shocks i.e. performance under abnormal events.
• Uncertainty: recognition and representation of uncertainty due to date, methods and models as
well as long-term uncertainty associated with the future.
Figure 3.15 below illustrates the concept of a decision “pipeline” as explored in the long-term
planning on the Thames Estuary pilot to support a formal assessment of “flexibility”.
Figure 3.14 DSS Tools for long term planning: Example screen shots from the three pilot sites
Legend
Portfolio 3:
Resilient e.g.
Decision point
Flood Portfolio 6:
awareness Resis/resil.
Decision path
Portfolio 1: raising; Build flood
abc Portfolio of measures Resilient e.g. Relocation; barrier;
evacuation Damage Managed
Strategic alternative planning; compensation realignment;
flood Evacuation
Decision time / epoch warning;
planning.
floodable
basements.
Portfolio 4:
Resis/resil.
Maintain
Existing defences;
Ongoing
Build more Portfolio 7:
System maintenance
retention; Resilient e.g.
Portfolio2: Flood Maintain
Resistant e.g. warning defences;
Raise Build
defences; retention;
Build Portfolio 5: Managed
retention; Resilient e.g. realignment
Improve Raise
conveyance defences;
Build flood
barrier; build
flood gates.
2006 2020 2035 2045 2060 2065 2080 2095 2100

Timeline
Figure 3.15 Example of multi-staged decision process used within the Thames DSS

39
3.3.3 Flood event management – concepts, theories and tools

Introduction
During a flood event, the responsible authorities need to make decisions on operation of barriers and
on evacuation/rescue strategies. Temporary flood protection is sometimes an option and if so it must
be decided on quickly. Knowledge of evacuation routes and a forecast of blocked roads can, if
provided in a timely fashion, significantly reduce injury and fatalities. Decision Support Systems
(DSSs) can assist the user by quickly showing the available information on water levels, objects at
risk, evacuation routes, resident vulnerability, etc. This support can be given during the preparation of
flood event management or during the actual flood event to underpin:
• Short-term actions to prevent flooding (operation of barriers and retention areas);
• Actions to reduce the impact of flooding (opening or closing gates in the hinterland);
• Preparation of evacuation plans;
• Preparation of rescue plans;
• Evacuation before or during a flood event; and
• Rescue after a flood.
Review of existing DSSs

Task 19 undertook a review of available decision support systems in the UK, the Netherlands and
France (Maaten et al, 2007). A separate FLOODsite report (Logtmeijer, 2006) provides an overview
of the description of user requirements on flood event management as they have been gathered by
studies in literature, contacts with end-users and interviews with stakeholders and experts. The
principal information needs of end users, identified through survey and discussion, are an ability to
explore and display:
• Flood event inundation scenarios;
• Flood alleviation options;
• Flood hazard at vulnerable locations;
• People and objects at risk;
• Safe havens, exit routes;
• Coordination of all event response personnel.
A new methodological framework in support of Flood Event Management

The FLOODsite methodological framework for a DSS focused on flood event management is
provided in Figure 3.16. It shows the eight modules that are generally relevant in flood event
management (Van der Vat et al, 2007) and exhibits considerable similarity to the long term planning
approach developed in Task 18; highlighting the utilising of the SPRC framework as an underpinning
philosophy for all decisions (although in the context of long term FRM decision are taken on a higher
level and management options comprise policy directions or strategic alternatives, not ready-to-
implement measures. In flood event management the options are much more detailed, location-specific
and ready to be implemented). The methodological framework was translated in prototype software
and further developed in two sites: the Scheldt and the Thames. An example of this enactment is
shown in Figure 3.17 below.
Prototype DSSs for flood event management

The methodological framework was applied in three pilots. The three pilot applications did not cover
the whole scope of the framework, but focused on specific aspects defined by the different end users.
Two prototype DSSs, FLINTOF and ESS, were built for the Thames and the Schelde pilot
respectively. The DSSs are country-specific, i.e. adjusted to the countries’ models and commonly used
methods. The DSSs address different end-users that have different responsibilities and information
requirements. Because of this, the DSSs were implemented as different software tools. The ESS
provides assistance on making evacuation plans before the actual flood event, while FLINTOF also
provides information on emergency access during a flood. In addition, FLINTOF requires a higher
level of technical expertise of the end user, compared to the ESS.

40
External Tools Hazard module Management

driver module response
module Fluvial / tidal water levels module
•Flood Early Breach locations and growth
•Discharge Warning •Operational
•Water level Systems
Flood characteristics (depth, velocity, extent) flood
•Precipitation •Reliability prevention
•Wind analysis •Operational
•Tide •Hydrodynamic Exposure module flood
•Topography model People management
•Drainage •Breach growth (closure of
Livestock
system model gates)
Property and utilities
•People and Evacuation Transport network
Evacuation,
livestock model
rescue and
•Time of day
warning
•Property and
Vulnerability module
utilities at risk
•Transport Reference
network damage Relation between flood characteristics and
functions damage for different receptors
Consequence module
Damage to inhabitants (affected people,
Damage and exposed people, casualties)
casualties Damage to livestock, property and utilities
model (expressed in the value lost)
Risk module
Expected damage for a forecasted water level

summed over the different breach locations
expressed in euros or number of people harmed
Provision of Information to Decision Makers
Figure 3.16 Methodological framework for flood event management DSS
1. Base data
- Population data
- Background mapping
- Digital Terrain Model (DTM)
2. Hydraulic modelling data

3. Flood hazard data
- Velocity (V), Depth (D)
- Combined V x D grid for different time steps
4. Flood risk to people

- Estimate of number of fatalities
for different time steps
5. Road network for emergency access

- Assess V x D at all points on the road network
- Assess when routes will become closed to
different vehicles
6. Evacuation times
- Import evacuation times from models
7. Probability of building collapse

- Assess V x D at all buildings and probability of
13 February 2006 Science Task Review 8
collapse
Figure 3.17 Technological framework of the DSS for the Thames and Schelde Estuaries

41
FLINTOF – the Thames pilot illustration

FLINTOF (Flood INcident Tactical and Operational Framework) was developed and applied on the
Thamesmead “embayment”. It was not designed to identify optimal solutions with respect to flood
event management, but rather to provide information on selected options for use in the emergency
management planning and decision-making process (see Figure 3.18). Furthermore, FLINTOF does
not contain hydrological or hydraulic simulation models nor does it require the use of specific
hydraulic modelling software. However, FLINTOF does require the results from two-dimensional
hydrodynamic modelling at a suitable time interval and the spatial and time intervals for FLINTOF are
flexible.
The key features of the FLINTOF are as follows:

• Organisation and viewing of spatial-temporal data relevant to emergency planning;
• Use of information from external models (e.g. hydraulic models) to assess flood extents and
depths, and flood hazard as a function of velocity and depth;
• Calculation of the flood risk to people in terms of number of injuries and fatalities;
• Assessment of the road network with respect to emergency access;
• Use of information from external evacuation models to display typical evacuation times at a
census enumeration level;
• Estimates of the probability of building collapse;
• Providing information for the appraisal of different emergency management interventions;
Figure 3.18 Display of evacuation times for Thamesmead 3
3
This map is reproduced from the OS map by HR Wallingford with the permission of the Controller of Her
Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings: Licence Number 100019904

42
ESS - Schelde pilot

A prototype support system for evacuation planning (Evacuation Support System, ESS) was
developed and applied on the Schelde flood prone area of Walcheren and Zuid-Beveland. The Task
19 methodological framework is generic and some parts could be omitted in the Schelde application.
Its objective was to support decision makers in making evacuation plans, by providing relevant
information on the area at risk. ESS is a tool that links different breach locations to a database with
simulation results of flood events (see Figure 3.19). In the background spatial information is present,
for example topographical data, location of hospitals and postal code zones containing the number of
inhabitants. The DSS can be used in case of a critical situation, when extremely high water levels are
forecast and dikes show signs of weaknesses. Moreover, the DSS is a useful tool in developing
evacuation plans. The end user can very quickly try out different scenarios and directly see the effect
on the evacuation time and routes.
Figure 3.19 ESS screen showing the time of inundation for a breach scenario ‘Rilland’
Urban flood modelling in support of community safeguard plans

In the French pilot the input from detailed 2D modelling to the requirements of emergency planning in
urban areas was studied. The central part of the framework was applied to show how hazard maps,
vulnerability maps and risk maps can be used to plan activities that reduce the impact of flooding. Not
only can these be maps be used to plan evacuation routes, but also for related city planning such as
safe locations of parking areas and water supply systems, and designation of safe exit points of
hospitals and schools. The areas to be evacuated during a certain flood event are delineated using the
flood risk map combining the hazard and vulnerability maps coupled to a simulation model database
that provides vital information on flood duration and propagation direction at point which for the
deciding and planning evacuation. Figures 3.20 and 3.21 present an example of the 100-year flood; in
hazard mapping Figure 3.19 the upper left figure shows water depths, upper right figure shows flow
velocities and lower figure shows the overall flood hazard.

43
Figure 3.19 Flood Hazard mapping for the project site in Nice
Safe routes during

flooding
Figure 3.20 Routes of evacuation during flooding event
3.3.4 Uncertainty frameworks

Introduction
In modern flood risk management rational decisions are based upon a comparison of the costs and
benefits, in terms of risk reduction, of a range of structural and non-structural interventions. However,
the evidence used to estimate risks (often against multiple criteria) and costs is almost invariably
uncertain for a variety of reasons. Uncertainty analysis is therefore required in order to understand the
implications for decision makers of limited data, model uncertainties, changes in the flooding system
over the long term, non-commensurate scales of appraisal, and, potentially conflicting decision
objectives. By analysing uncertainty, decision makers can understand the extent to which the
performance of their choices may be undermined if the future departs from expectations.

44
The practice of uncertainty analysis and use of the results of such analysis in decision making is not
widespread, for several reasons:
• There is a bewildering proliferation of uncertainty methods published in the academic literature.
• Uncertainty analysis takes time, so adds to the cost of risk analysis, options appraisal and design
studies.
• The data necessary for quantified uncertainty analysis are not always available, so new data
collection campaigns (perhaps including time-consuming expert elicitation exercises) may need to
be commissioned.
• The additional requirements for analysis and computation are rapidly being (more than)
compensated for by the availability of enhanced computer processing power.
However, computer processing power is only part of the solution, which also requires a step change in
the approach to managing data and integrating the software for uncertainty calculations.
Task 20 has sought to make a significant contribution to the methods and application of uncertainty
analysis by targeting novel areas of uncertainty analysis and decision support. The research fell into
four sub-tasks:
• Development of an overall framework for uncertainty analysis in flood risk management decisions.
• Development of new methods to deal with the uncertainty issues associated with composite model
construction – in particular associated with whole system modelling
• Propagation of uncertainty through composite (hybrid) models using efficient computational
methods – in particular applied to flood forecasting
• Development of methods for robust decision making under severe uncertainty – in particular
associated with long term planning and linked to Task 18.
A framework for recognising and recording uncertainty

Task 20 has introduced a framework for the process of conducting uncertainty analysis and
communicating to stakeholders (see Figure 3.21). Whilst the methods, for example for estimation or
propagation of probabilities may differ a logical structure has been developed that is generically
applicable to risk-based planning, strategy and design decisions (i.e. not flood forecasting decisions),
though it may need to be adapted to the characteristics of a specific situation. Formally recording and
reviewing uncertainties within the analysis is a crucial step and provides the foundation for an onward
formalised quantification and forward propagation of uncertainty through the modelling process,
which in turn supports a an assessment of the effect of uncertainty on choices is analysed using
robustness analysis.
A framework to recognise uncertainty within whole system models

A new software framework, Reframe, has been designed to support a more routine analysis of
uncertainty in practical flood risk analysis and flood risk management decisions. Reframe responds to
the perceived difficulties of coupling models from different researchers in an efficient and
unambiguous manner. It develops a new metamodel that formally records the reference frames, data
sets, models, computation definitions involved in each model component and the DSS as a whole. In
association with Task 24, Reframe has been applied to an uncertainty analysis in the Thames pilot
study.
Propagation of integral uncertainty through composite (hybrid) forecast models

A range of methods for propagating uncertainty through complex models exist, but hitherto have made
only limited use of advanced machine learning techniques. In FLOODsite an innovative approach to
modelling errors in forecasting situations, referred to as the UNEEC methodology, has been
developed. The methodology is particularly applicable to forecasting problems. Information about
uncertainties is obtained by analysing the residuals between model prediction and observations. Patters
in these uncertainties are analysed using machine learning techniques. These can then be used in
unforeseen situations in order to estimate predictive uncertainties.

45
Figure 3.21 Uncertainty analysis framework – documenting, recording and challenging uncertainty
In the presented approach an uncertainty model is built to estimates total uncertainty of a deterministic
(process) model by analyzing its residuals (errors). The following assumptions are made:
• the process model error (mismatch between the observed and modelled value) is a proper indicator
of model uncertainty;
• the data which are close (e.g. in terms of Euclidean distance) in the input space correspond to
similar real-life situations and will have similar values of model errors;
• “optimal” process model is used to produce a deterministic forecast.
The concept of optimal model, however does not exclude the possibility of using an optimal
combination (ensemble) of “good” models having the same structure but different in the parameters –
which could result from a Monte Carlo exercise.
The UNEEC method has been tested to estimate uncertainty of runoff simulations by conceptual
rainfall-runoff model with application the Brue catchment in the United Kingdom and other
catchments. It has been applied in collaboration with FLOODsite partners to the Alto Adige. It was
also compared with other uncertainty estimation methods (GLUE and meta-Gaussian approach).
Figure 3.22 illustrates the UNEEC method, which has three steps:
• clustering,
• estimation of the probability distribution of the model error, ep, and
• building model U for probability distribution of the error.
Once the model U is trained in the calibration data set (Xu), the model can be used to predict the
probability distribution of the model error in a new or unseen data set (e.g., validation data).

46
Figure 3.22 The generalized framework of the UNEEC method.
Decision making under severe uncertainty

Flood risk analysis is subject to uncertainties, often severe, which have the potential to undermine
engineering decisions. This is particularly true in strategic planning, which requires appraisal over
long periods of time. Traditional economic appraisal techniques largely ignore this uncertainty,
preferring to use a precise measure of performance, which affords the possibility of unambiguously
ranking options in order of preference. In the FLOODsite project information-gap theory, or info-gap
for short, has been applied to a flood risk management decision. This shows that even in situations of
severe uncertainty it is possible to make well justified decisions with good knowledge of the
implications of a wide range of future possibilities (Hall et al, 2008).
Info-gap is a quantified non-probabilistic theory of robustness. It provides a means of examining the

sensitivity of a decision to uncertainty. Rather than simply presenting a range of possible values of
performance, info-gap explores how this range grows as uncertainty increases. This allows
considerably greater opportunity for insight into the behaviour of our model of option performance. It
provides a link between probabilistic and scenario analysis. The information generated may be of use
in improving the model, refining the options, or justifying the selection of one option over the others
in the absence of an unambiguous rank order.
Robustness analysis was one of the topics of frequent communication between FLOODsite Task 20
and Task 18 (Development of Framework for Long-term Planning).
At some place in this document it might be worth mentioning the dissemination activities in
summarising how many research papers have been published. Furthermore, all PhDs with some
relation to FLOODsite could be mentioned.

47
4. Relevance of FLOODsite to the Floods Directive

4.1 Key elements of the Floods Directive
The Floods Directive (See Section 1.2 above) sets out a sequence of activities for assessing and
reducing flood risks across Europe, with particular reference to the need for cooperation in the many
transboundary rivers within the EU and across the boundaries of the Community. FLOODsite has
delivered advances in several areas of direct relevance to the main activities of the Floods Directive as
laid out below.
Preliminary flood risk assessment (Articles 4 & 5)
It is essential that action will only be taken in areas where potential significant flood risks exist or are
reasonably foreseeable in the future. If in a particular river basin, sub-basin or stretch of coastline no
potential significant flood risk exists or is reasonably foreseeable in the future; Member States would
be able to identify them in the preliminary flood risk assessment. For these river basins and/or sub-
basins no further action would have to be taken.
Flood Hazard Maps and Flood risk maps (Article 6)
Flood hazards and risks will be mapped for the river basins and sub-basins with significant potential
risk of flooding for three scenarios
(a) Floods with a low probability or extreme event scenarios
(b) Floods with a medium probability (likely return period > 100 years)
(c) Floods with high probability, where appropriate
The maps may show information related to flood extent, depths and velocity of water and the potential
adverse consequences.
Flood risk management plans (Article 7)
Flood risk management plans will be developed and implemented at river basin or sub-basin level to
reduce and manage the flood risk where identified as necessary in the preliminary flood risk
assessment. These plans will focus on the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding for
human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, and, if considered
appropriate, on non-structural initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding.
Boundaries and International Basins (Article 8)
Article 8 covers the boundaries of plans and in particular the need for collaboration between Member
States for international river basins which extend across several Member States or beyond the
boundaries of the Community.
4.2 Potential support for Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment

The preliminary flood risk assessments will be used to identify areas which need to be considered in
more detail through mapping and potentially the preparation of flood risk management plans. In order
to assess flood risk it is necessary identify both the probability and consequences of flooding. In terms
of assessing the probability of the flood hazard, the outputs of Task 2 provide up-to-date statistical
tools for looking at the probability of extreme events both at a point and the spatial variation spatially
of these events. Where raised defences are used as flood mitigation measures in an area, it is
important to recognise in quantifying the risk of flooding that all engineered structures will have a
finite probability of failure at less than the design loading but also may have a performance which
exceeds the design standard. Thus Tasks 4, 6 and 7 provide underpinning knowledge and methods to
examine the reliability of existing flood defences that can form part of a flood risk assessment.
However, the existence of raised defences may be taken as an indication that risk maps and plans need
to be prepared. In that case the contribution of the science in Tasks 4, 6 and 7 will be directly in these
subsequent activities. Likewise it is not yet clear whether the flood damage estimation guidelines
developed in Task 9 or the estimation of loss-of-life developed in Task 10 will be needed in
preliminary assessments. If the preliminary flood risk assessment requires initial drafting of flood

48
inundation and consequence maps, then other FLOODsite results are also relevant as discussed in the
paragraphs below on the preparation of Flood Risk Maps.
4.3 Potential Support for Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps
As for flood hazard mapping, Task 3 has developed and tested a procedure for coastal areas based
upon the FLOODsite methodology together with a review of existing mapping technologies for
riverine and coastal areas. The objectives of the research were limited to a better understanding of the
coastal area to avoid duplication with other initiatives (such as EXCIMAP set up DG Environment)
that considered river hazard and risk mapping.
The project has developed a deeper understanding of the elements of risk and this will be available to
support the flood risk mapping process. FLOODsite has in Task 2 contributed knowledge leading to a
(joint) probability density function for extreme values such as water levels, river discharges, and sea
state parameters. In addition, the understanding of reliability of flood defences from Tasks 4, 6 and 7
has enabled a fuller assessment of risk to be prepared through factoring the likelihood of defence
failures into the assessment of risk. In Task 8, models for flood inundation have been benchmarked,
and this has led to guidance on the suitability of hydrodynamic modelling approaches for hazard and
risk mapping as well as to the identification of relevant hazard characteristics and their classification
on maps.
The work in Tasks 9 and 10 is of direct relevance to flood risk mapping since this work supports the
evaluation of the consequences of flooding. In particular, the risk mapping may use the flood damage
estimation guidelines, the estimation of loss-of-life model, and the GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation
of risk developed in Task 10.
4.4 Potential Support for the preparation of Flood Risk Management Plans
The purpose of the flood risk management plans is to identify means of reducing the impacts of
flooding. In addition to the using the project knowledge outlined above which supports the
preliminary assessments and flood risk mapping, several other tasks are researching areas which
support the preparation of flood risk management plans. These are:
• The understanding of community preparedness and resilience from Task 11
• Identification, design and appraisal of sustainable flood mitigation measures from Tasks 12 to 14
• The rôle of flood event warning systems from Tasks 15 and 16
• Emergency evacuation planning, coupling inundation and traffic models from Task 17
• Decision support for long-term planning and the selection of a portfolio of measures and
instruments for flood risk management from Task 18
It should be recognised that the process models and decision support software will require further
development for application in practice. The FLOODsite project will prototype methods and pilot
their application but only to a pre-competitive level.
4.5 Impact of climate change

In Article 4 discussing the preliminary flood risk assessments the floods directive states “Based on
available or readily derivable information, such as records and studies on long term developments, in
particular impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods, a preliminary flood risk assessment
shall be undertaken to provide an assessment of potential risks.”. Article 14 of the Floods Directive
on the review cycle of the activities of the Directive states “The likely impact of climate change on the
occurrence of floods shall be taken into account…” The FLOODsite research has illustrated methods,
particularly in Tasks 14, 18, 21, 24 and 25 of how the impacts of climate change on future flood risk
can be explored.

49
5. Interaction between components

5.1 Project Integration
Project integration was one of the recurring activities of the Management Team. There was a tension
between the benefits of close interaction between research teams in capturing feedbacks in knowledge
and the additional complexity brought about by such an interaction. These issues are discussed further
in Section 6 below.
The activities of flood risk management and the FLOODsite research can be considered at a series of
hierarchical levels:
Table 5.1 Hierarchy of knowledge and activity for flood risk management
Level Description Examples of policy, activity or knowledge
1 Societal context Sustainability policy, environmental objectives, regional
development planning,
2 Flood risk system National policies and activity to implement the Floods Directive,
investment planning for flood risk management …
3 Structural clustering of Risk analysis, risk mapping, flood forecasting and warning, civil
activities contingency planning, emergency management, national appraisal
of flood risk …
4 Domain specific Radar hydrology, runoff modelling, embankment reliability, flow
knowledge modelling, loss-of-life estimation, flood damage estimation …
5 Detailed supporting Atmospheric physics, scattering of radiation, sediment transport
technical knowledge processes, joint probability statistics, wave shoaling processes,
hydraulic resistance of vegetation, soil mechanics, public
consultation methods, GIS, …
This hierarchical assessment of knowledge and activities may not be precise in that the distinction
between levels 4 and 5 above may be questioned. However the hierarchy indicates the broad context
for the contributions to knowledge from the FLOODsite tasks and facilitates the integration of the
project knowledge.
The scope of FLOODsite as a project was at Level 2, with the Themes 1 and 2 focussed on and
combining knowledge at Level 3. The individual FLOODsite Tasks in Themes 1 to 3 then operated
mostly at Level 4 with some detailed components of research at Level 5 (for example research on
wave impact forces in Task 6). The FLOODsite Tasks were substantially self-contained and so
connections between them was either sequential (like Tasks 4 and 6 feeding to Task 7) or from one
hierarchical level to another (for example Task information from Themes 1 and 2 into the Decision
Support work in Theme 3).
The key to transferring knowledge within the project tasks is for close collaboration at a working
level. The linkage between the science and the Pilots is a direct mechanism for integration of the
project and for the pilot sites to advance the project science as well as the pilots using more of the
FLOODsite tools in their areas. The pilot studies acted in some respects as knowledge integrators
operating at Levels 3 or 2. The nature of the links was “hard”, that is a direct dependency, or “soft”
through the passage of information to enhance an activity without it being on the critical path for that
activity. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 below provide an overview of this inter-linkage. These linkages show
that although no research Task from Themes 1 to 3 is tested in all pilots, all Tasks in Themes 1, 2 and
3 are tested in the context of at least two pilot areas (taking account of Task 23 covering four distinct
Flash-flood basins).

50
Figure 5.1 Links between project science in Theme 1 and the pilot sites
Pilots T 21 T 22 T 23 T 24 T 25 T 26 T 27
Thames Schelde Ebro River German
Elbe River Tisza River Flash flood River River Delta Bight
Basin Basin Basins Estuary Estuary Coast Coast
Besos
Adige
Mulde
Moldawa
Ardennes
Cevennes
Lower Elbe
Task Methods/Knowledge
Theme 1 Advancing scientific knowledge …
Sub-theme 1.1 Hazard (Risk Sources)
T1 Hydrological models for extreme flash floods in X X X
ungauged basins
T2 Models for (statistical)/joint probability analysis of X X X
extreme event data
T3 Techniques for mapping flood hazards X X
Sub-theme. 1.2 Hazard (Risk Pathways)
T4 Failure mode analysis X X X X
T5 Model tools for morphological changes at coasts X X
T6 Improved models for breach initiation and growth X X X X
T7 Methodology for reliability analysis X X
T8 Numerical inundation models X X X X
Sub-theme. 1.3 Vulnerability (Receptors, consequences)
T9 Flood damage evaluation methods X X X X X X X X
T 10 Methodologies for GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation of X X X X X X X X X X
flood damages
T 11 Risk perception, community behaviour and social X X X
resilience
Note
T4, T5 and T8 mainly delivered technologies through other FLOODsite tasks

51
Figure 5.2 Links between project science in Themes 2 and 3 and the pilot sites
Pilots T 21 T 22 T 23 T 24 T 25 T 26 T 27
Tisza Thames Schelde Ebro River German
Elbe River River Flash flood River River Delta Bight
Basin Basin Basins Estuary Estuary Coast Coast
Besos
Adige
Mulde
Moldawa
Ardennes
Cevennes
Lower Elbe
Task Methods/Knowledge
Theme 2 Innovative mitigation …
Sub-theme 2.1 Pre-flood measures
T 12 Methodology for ex-post evaluation of pre-flood and X X X
flood event measures and instruments (ex-post EFM)
T 13 Strategies for pre-flood risk management in case studies X X X
T 14 Scenario development and analysis X X X
Sub-theme 2.2 Flood event measures
T 15 Theoretical and operational assessment of the SAS X X X X X
efficiency
T 16 Methods for evaluation flash-flood at regional level X X X
T 17 Open system model integration framework for 2-D X X
inundation modelling
Theme 3 Framework for Integration
T 18 Developing specification of a prototype DSS (long-term X X X
planning)
T 19 Developing t specification of a prototype DSS (event X X
management)
T 20 Uncertainty propagation software X X X

52
5.2 Conceptual, methodological and technological integration

Scientific integration in FLOODsite started with the project design through its specific focus on risk
management. Risk by its definition requires integration through the source-pathway-receptor-
consequences chain and management of risk then integrates across the differing timescales and
activities that can reduce or mitigate risk.
FLOODsite Theme 3 explored various frameworks of integration of the knowledge domain in flood
risk management. This takes place in three ways Conceptual, Methodological and Technical.
The conceptual framework is directed at the activities of decision makers and other actors in the
process of flood risk management. It sits mainly on Level 2 of the hierarchy of Table 5.1 (with some
interaction with Level 1 drivers) and this was the basis of the project design. It covers
• Processes for the analysis and assessment of risk
• Public attitudes to risk and its acceptability
• Flood risk management interaction with natural and social systems
• Process for developing risk management strategy and associated measures and instruments
The methodological framework covers both the influences on flood risk and the methods for
understanding the flood risk system. Hence this sits mainly at Level 3 of the hierarchy of Table 5.1
and encompasses
• Representation of external drivers and responses
• Process modelling and risk-based integrations
• Uncertainty estimation
• Assessment criteria: flexibility, robustness, sustainability
A framework for technological integration operates at Level 4 of the hierarchy of Table 5.1 and
envisages a computer-based coupling of tools and technologies that support the enactment of the
methodological framework for a particular user community. It covers:
• Identifying and coupling models in risk simulation
• Integration of spatially distributed and temporally varying data
• Techniques to visualise simulation results
• Operational support in terms of advice, training, maintenance etc
5.3 Examples of integration of knowledge for climate change and flood

risk
One area of current concern is that of the potential impacts of climate change on flood risk. The call
for research did not contain any reference to climate change assessment and hence the proposal did not
explicitly address this topic through a specific work package of that title. Nevertheless, FLOODsite
has considered future climate scenarios in the course of the work on several tasks, particularly in
Tasks 14 and 18 and in the Pilot studies which are grounded in the need to find practical solutions to
future flood risk management. FLOODsite provides knowledge to use in the source-pathway-
receptor-consequence model of risk analysis and methods for exploring and evaluating future risk
given different scenarios for the key drivers (e.g. climate change and economic development) and
policy frameworks within which strategic and management decisions may be made.
5.3.1 Future scenarios and flood risk

The social, environmental and economic conditions that future generations will face are uncertain and
with the path for development of these conditions influenced by choices made by the current
generation. Current focus is on the pressing problem of climate change and the need to adapt to
inevitable change as well as to take actions to mitigate further adverse change. Climate however is
just one driver on the flood risk system as was explored for example by the UK Future Flooding
Foresight project. Since risk relates also to the consequences of flooding, future flood risk should be

53
explored through compatible or at least plausible scenarios of climate (mean and variability), GHG
emissions, environmental response to the climate, social systems (including attitudes, affluence,
institutions and governance) and policy. Many Tasks in Theme 1 advance the science needed to
analyse flood risk – and these can be applied in the context of the current climate or any future
scenario. Some examples are: the methods for estimation of extremes in Task 2, the morphological
response of coasts and rivers from Task 5, understanding the failure modes of defences from Task 7 or
the economic and social impacts of flooding from Tasks 9, 10 and 11.
5.3.2 Exploring integrated strategies in Task 14

Sustainable flood risk management requires policy making which takes account of the needs of
generations beyond our own. This means we need to consider what ‘world’ we want to pass on to
future generations. In practice, however, we tend to progress from where we are now and to merely
mitigate the negative effects of earlier actions. This implies that it is very unlikely that a change of
strategy occurs. There may, however, be better strategies. By showing policy makers where carrying
on along the current strategy would bring us, and where alternative strategies might bring us, better
informed decision making is possible. This also applies to flood risk management.
FLOODsite (Task 14) focused on methods of designing and assessing alternative flood risk
management strategies, as well as on their assessment against different future scenarios: all possible
and equally likely. In Task 14, FLOODsite established that the design of strategic alternatives for the
far future is preferably done according to a top-down approach, by defining clear and opposite guiding
principles, such as resistance versus resilience, and / or by specifying different objectives (economy
versus ecology, people versus material damage, etc.). One might also distinguish flood risk
management strategies analogous to war strategies, such as attack, defence, regroup and retreat. These
might well apply as societal adaptation strategies with different contributions of either land use
planning and engineering. In the Netherlands, Partner 2 (Deltares) applied this approach on the 2nd
Sustainability Outlook for the Netherlands under the title ‘The Netherlands Later’. For 2020 and 2040
projections of population and economic development were translated into land use projections under
various policy strategies. The following flood risk management strategies were explored.
Table 5.2 Future flood management strategies for the Netherlands

Spatial planning
Autonomous Guided growth Managed retreat
Water management and engineering (present policy)
Present policy (5-yearly check-up and Trend/ high (Careful) Retreat
heightening when needed) pressure trend
Extra protection (higher protection standards) Protect
Coastal expansion Fort Holland/

expand
Room for water (standard differentiation/ Accommodate
compartimentalisation)
No more heightening of defences Complete retreat
It was found that climate change is no larger an issue of adaptation than economic growth is; both
result in a doubling to tripling of the flood risk between the years 2015 and 2040. It was also found
that the present strategy is not so bad but has flaws, especially as the whole flood risk system –
including socio-economy – becomes less robust and less flexible. Alternative strategies perform better
on some points and are now being seriously considered for some regions in the context of the national
debate on Water Safety 21st Century. This tempts us to conclude that studying Integrated Strategies
does influence public debate and policy making.

54
5.3.3 Linking FLOODsite methods in practice - the Thames Estuary 2100

Project
Work on long-term planning in the Thames Estuary pilot integrated activities of Tasks 14, 18 and 24
through planned collaboration with other applied research within UK national RTD programmes. The
Environment Agency of England and Wales, through the Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) project, is
developing a strategy for the Thames Estuary to take account of increasing flood risk which could
occur over the next century. Climate change, rising sea levels, ageing of defence infrastructure and
new development in the tidal flood plain can all increase flood risk. Initial estimates suggest that the
next generation of the Thames Estuary flood defences could cost over €5 Billion, with this is
protecting assets with value in excess of €100 Billion. Good risk management decisions depend on
the quality of information about the risks. A major study programme was initiated within TE2100 to
collect data, to carry out monitoring and modelling, to predict changes in risk, and examine the
benefits and costs of options. This was used to develop and appraise alternative strategies for
managing flood risk over the next 30 to 100 years. From early in FLOODsite a very close relationship
existed between the UK flood risk management RTD programme, the TE2100 project and
FLOODsite, benefiting all. TE2100 saw the advantage of new tools and information which have been
central to the development of the strategy, while the RTD projects have had a ready customer with a
clear need, and the opportunity to develop and prove new techniques to meet the challenges. Here we
highlight the areas where this collaboration continues to be particularly important and fruitful.
5.3.4 Long term planning and risk assessment for the Thames flooding system
From early in TE2100 project it was clear that flood risk planning would need to be based on a sound
understanding of the estuary and its various flood risk management components acting as a system
over the long term. Some of the main elements include: fresh water inflows, tide and surge levels, the
channel itself, the Thames Barrier and other moveable barriers, fixed defences both upstream and
downstream of the barrier, and numerous tide gates, pumps and other components. It is also necessary
to consider the possible impacts of flooding including flood inundation, and people, property and
environmental assets at risk. A comprehensive system model has been developed to be able to answer
questions about levels of risk now and in the future, and to assess the robustness of various risk
management policies (including their benefits and costs). The model uses the Source-Pathway-
Receptor approach and is a development of the so-called “RASP High Level Methodplus” used for the
annual UK National Flood Risk Assessment.
TE2100 flood risk system model - main components

The TE2100 study builds upon initial modelling work and includes:
Improved input data:
Sources
• Improved main-river loading (water level extreme value distributions) conditions from a site
specific fluvial/tidal joint probability study.
• Improved tributary loading (water level extreme value distributions) conditions from site specific
modelling, including barrier failed and working states.
Pathways
• Low Level LIDAR survey of the outer Thames defence line.
• Targeted asset condition inspection surveys.
• Updated flood defence data (NFCDD)
• Localised GPS survey data
• Targeted extraction of asset parameters from ‘as constructed drawings’
• Defence deterioration profiles
• Thames Flood Barrier reliability analysis
Receptors
• Updated and improved national property data set
Improvements to the methods:

55
• Improved handling of main river/tidal joint probability issues

• Full simulation of realistic flood defence failure scenarios
• Inclusion of barrier reliability analysis
• Differentiation of overtopping and breaching flood risk contributions
A sophisticated system model of the Thames Estuary has been developed that includes joint
probability calculations, defence reliability, through a Monte-Carlo sampling approach – this has been
allied to inundation estimates and economic damage model to create a sophisticated modelling tool.
This model was extended under the FLOODsite project to produce a ‘Rapid’ system model. This
enables the fast exploration of potential strategies in the context of different socio-economic and
climatic futures, at multiple epochs. It also provides the means for a more robust ‘variance-based’
uncertainty analysis, building confidence in the underlying methods and enabling prioritisation of data
collection and quality. A further innovation is the development of methods for building long-term
coherent storylines and assessing these in terms of their sustainability, robustness and flexibility. The
model has been run for a number of different management scenarios. These include a “do nothing”
and maintain existing defence standards under a variety of climate change scenarios on the Thames
Estuary. Figure 5.3 illustrates the economic damage estimates in the “do-nothing” case for current
conditions and some climate scenarios.
P1 Return period/Economic damage results
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
Damage
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
Return Period (Years)
Present Day (river level capping) Defra (Year 2100) Medium high (Year 2100) High+ (Year 2100)
Figure 5.3 Thames Estuary flood risk for a range of climate change scenarios from Task 24
5.3.5 Climate change impacts on flood frequency in the Elbe basin

In Task 21 two meteorological drivers of the flood risk systems were investigated based on
regionalised climate change projections according to the IPCC scenarios: Pre-event moisture and
heavy rainfall events. Research encompassed analyses of the daily climate scenario data (transient run)
and the effects of climate change on design precipitation and return periods. Data are derived from the
GCM base ECHAM5 (MPI-M Hamburg) for SRES scenarios A2 and B1 and the dynamic statistical
downscaling using weather patterns (WETTREG). Three transient realisations (dry, mean, wet) for
each station and decade between 2001-2100 were considered with mean realisation of 2041-2050 and
2091-2100.

56
Results indicate temperature and precipitation changes in the Mulde River catchment with higher
precipitation changes in the lowlands in summer. Extreme precipitation (> 50 mm) is not covered by
climate projections (like 2002) which may change the probability density functions. However, based
on the calculations historical 100 year return period will probably be 65 year (1day), 85year (2day), 97
year (3day)… by the end of the 21st century. Changes in pre-event moisture and snow melt floods are
possible which should be further investigated.

57
6. Lessons learned and areas of difficulty

6.1 Interdisciplinary communication
Interdisciplinary communication needs simple and agreed language. Cultural differences between
regions exist in the way issues and scientists from different regions perceive research questions. There
is not necessarily a single “best” flood risk management strategy. The perception of issues varies in
space and changes in time with changes in understanding and also the societal, administrative and
policy contexts in which flood risk management takes place. In the reality of flood risk management
the public perception of measures is no less important than scientific facts on the effectiveness of these
measures. Therefore, for studies on the feasibility of measures, and on the best way to implement
them, co-operation of physicist and ecologists with economists and social scientists is essential. This
should be based on agreement on some basic concepts and terms - scientists from different disciplines
still, too often, speak different languages.
Although all participants in FLOODsite (from the Czech, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek,
Hungarian, Italian, Spanish and Swedish language areas) could communicate very well in English, in
their home country they communicated on flood risk management in their own mother tongue. From
experience with previous projects (e.g. IRMA-SPONGE) it appeared that certain English terms were
interpreted differently by people from different countries, and sometimes even by people from the
same country with different scientific backgrounds. In fact, interpretation differences also exist within
language areas: in some cases it can be difficult to agree on translation of terms for region-specific
concepts (e.g. certain measures) into or from Dutch, German, French or whatever language.
In some cases there is a “many to one” correspondence of words in translation will mask the richness
of meaning in an original language, thus both the French words “crue” and “inondation” would
probably be translated in English as “flood” which misses out the different scale of the events implied
in the native language. The English equivalent to “crue” (a small flood) might be “freshet” but this
regional dialect word (from the England-Wales border area) is not in common national usage and so
would fail to communicate to much of the UK. “Freshet”, however, is in use in North America but
here is describes the flow from a spring thaw resulting from snow and ice melt in rivers located in the
northern latitudes. Literal translation by non-experts may also be misleading, such as “lit mineur”
being the “minor bed” of a river, which in English technical usage actually means “main channel”.
Furthermore in many instances technical jargon is common, such language can make quite an impression
(it sounds scientific), whereas in reality it causes mystification and misunderstanding of what was actually
done. Real language problems (among various European languages), disciplinary jargon, etc. all hamper
true understanding. These may arise from the need for more technical precision in definitions than words
offer in common, vernacular usage, an example is afforded by the words “hazard” and “risk”, which in
common usage are often interchangeable as synonyms. In other cases a jargon word might be taken from
one discipline into another and its common “natural” meaning obscures the intended concept; an example
might be the word “fragility” in the context of “fragility curves” for components of flood defences which
express their probability to fail under a particular flood condition. A further problem with the word
“fragility” in this context is that a flood risk manager does not naturally communicate in public about the
fragility of a flood embankment, but rather about its reliability, strength and safety. Another case which
has been highlighted in FLOODsite comes from importing and developing a method from US practice, the
so-called “Flash Flood Guidance” method. This is not “Guidance” in the meaning of a document of
accepted good practice; rather it is a method to compare the forecast rainfall quantity with a threshold
quantity (adjusted according to recent rainfall) as a basis for issuing flood warnings.
All these examples emphasise not only the need to define the terms (like “Flood”) unambiguously, but
also the need to keep in mind that, some of those we communicate with will have another notion when
hearing this word due to the “common” translation in the language they use at home. Thus an early
output from FLOODsite was the document “Language of Risk” (FLOODsite Report T32-04-01) for
use within the research team as an aid to cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural communication between

58
the many European partners on FLOODsite. Nevertheless “the risk of language” remains as a
potential barrier to understanding.
6.2 Cooperation and interaction takes time
FLOODsite has involved working together with many people from different institutes, backgrounds,
disciplines and nationalities. To be effective this requires an understanding through meetings and
discussion about basic concepts, but it is easy to underestimate the time needed for this with the potential
consequence that insufficient time is scheduled for this interaction. When this occurs the tendency is for
different parts of the research team to proceed without checking whether all are moving in the same
direction. In Tasks 14 and 18, for example, several face-to-face team meetings took place between the
institutes involves, but still documents produced after a meeting showed discrepancies in understanding
which required further iteration. Although one of the advantages of FLOODsite was that it assembled a
team from many institutes to bring several differing perspectives on each task, this meant the available
budget to each institute per task required team members to work within their institute on more than one
project (although these were often related) and the competing obligations complicated co-operation at a
long distance.
6.3 Complex problems and interactions might be simplified

Flood risk management as researched in FLOODsite involves several disciplines with risk being
compounded from physical and socio-economic factors, each with their own characteristics and
uncertainties. For research, this complex system was separated into sub-systems, for example for river
flood risks on the Elbe these dealt with a whole chain, requiring various assumptions, through
• weather prediction from climate models, via rainfall to
• discharge, water level to flood 2-D simulation, followed by
• consequence modelling and then repeated through
• future scenarios for climate change, economic development and demography and different
alternatives for flood risk management
The research investigation treated this as a linear chain; difficulties with one element (the simulation
of the flood discharge response of the Elbe) had the effect of delaying subsequent appraisals both
within the Elbe pilot and in other tasks which were linked to these results.
In retrospect the difficulty with the models could have been regarded more as a means to (re)formulate
research questions, through seeking alternative approaches possible through a dialogue of scenarios.
Thus the sequential chain can be broken without losing sight on the end research and management
question: what if …? Detailed appraisal of the catchment response through runoff modelling is then
pursued “off-line” as a separate (and valuable) topic of research.
Many analyses can run in parallel and only depend to other models to a certain extent. A tiered
approach would be to use simple models with potentially large uncertainties where little knowledge is
available and adopt sophisticated models with less uncertainty on a higher tier where more detail and
complexity are required to represent the processes and phenomena. This could be argued to be an
application of the principle of Ockham’s razor – that of avoiding unnecessary complexity.
6.4 Nothing beats long and thorough experience

The multidisciplinary character of flood risk management means a deep understanding of the subject takes
time and experience to acquire. There is a wealth of existing, detailed knowledge on certain topics and the
time needed to explore this can have an impact upon the rate of scientific progress. In many fields a lack of
knowledge is not the key problem, but rather the incapacity for the present and next generation of scientists
to consume, internalise, cross-link and exploit this knowledge. Thus there is a tension between introducing
early career stage researchers into the collaborative team and making rapid progress. This is a challenge
for the senior and most experienced researchers who must plan how to transfer knowledge effectively to the
next generation (and possibly across institutional boundaries).

59
A related issue is that for some FLOODsite topics the research involved making advances in depth in a
relatively narrow area of science (for example the work of Task 6 on wave impact forces on embankment
and Task 15 on improving the quantitative estimation of precipitation from radar imagery). This detailed
understanding, however, needs differing skills and experience for it to be set within the broader context of
flood risk management and integrated into practice as a whole through stepping back from details.
6.5 External dependencies

FLOODsite contained several external links and dependencies in the research, particularly in the pilot sites.
Several issues arose through these dependencies,
• Access to 3rd party data and models
• Permission to publish research based in pilot areas with considerable political sensitivity
• Access to the large-scale GWK research flume in Hannover for tests in Task 6 was delayed through
other international and national programmes over-running.
Again these issues were identified, monitored and resolved through the project quarterly progress reporting.

60
7. Next steps for research

7.1 Introduction
One of the principal benefits of FLOODsite as an Integrated Project has been the ability to consider all
aspects of flood risk arising from river, estuary and coastal sources and their interaction within a single
project. Flood risk exists only through the impact of flooding (water temporarily on land not normally
covered) on human systems – people, property, commerce, agriculture etc. The environmental
consequences of flooding (positive or negative) are also have a human dimension through the
evaluation of these consequences either in monetary terms or in some other fashion (e.g. biodiversity
measures). Our research has shown that flood risk management depends upon many complex
interacting factors. Future research needs can be approached from two directions –
• developing an understanding of the broader context of flood risk management decisions (e.g. how
do flood risks compare with other risks managed at the public expense?) or
• the generation of knowledge and understanding of specific topics or components of the flood risk
system (e.g. the generation of runoff from extreme rainfall)
These two approaches are reflected in the following sections, with the broader contextual research
needs being treated in Section 7.2, with the more specific issues in the subsequent sections.
One question of widespread interest to policy-makers, water management agencies and the public
alike is how flood risks will change in the future, especially as the climate changes. FLOODsite has
explored methods for analysing flood risk which may be applied in current or future meteorological
conditions and for developing risk management strategies and exploring choices between strategic
alternatives. As the distance of the horizon of the future conditions being explored increases from
present conditions, the nature and source of uncertainty change. However, FLOODsite did not address
directly the future development of the climate and the consequent changes intensity of the
hydrometeorological forcing on the flood risk system; this is the domain of other research projects in
the area of global change.
7.2 Research to support flood risk management policy and practice

One driver for change in flood risk management policy and practice is the implementation of the
Floods Directive across the Member States of the EU. Although FLOODsite has contributed
knowledge and understanding directly relevant to the flood risk management decisions and activities
required by the Directive, the scope of flooding sources covered by the Directive is greater than those
included in FLOODsite. In particular FLOODsite did not cover flooding from urban drainage
systems, from groundwater or from the catastrophic failure of reservoirs; these issues however are or
have been the subject of other research initiatives.
The Floods Directive makes specific mention in Article 7 that “… flood risk management plans
established in one Member State shall not include measures which, by their extent and impact,
significantly increase flood risks upstream or downstream of other countries…”. FLOODsite included
pilot studies which covered two or more countries (Elbe, Tisza and Schelde). The FLOODsite
methodologies do enable the upstream and downstream influences of flood risk management measures
and instruments to be assessed, but only limited transnational application was possible in the context
of the project. It is recommended that:
R1 In order to support the transnational aspects of the Floods Directive international cross-
comparisons are undertaken of flood risk development and its management through longitudinal
studies of major rivers systems / basins / estuaries and how they have changed over the years.

61
The Floods Directive makes specific mention in Article 7 of “non-structural initiatives” and of “water
retention and controlled flooding”. In paragraph 14 of the preamble to the Directive it states: “Flood
risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. With a view to
giving rivers more space, they should consider where possible the maintenance and/or restoration of
floodplains, as well as measures to prevent and reduce damage to human health, the environment,
cultural heritage and economic activity”. Thus there is need to understand the real performance of
non-structural measures; the FLOODsite research (e.g. the Elbe Pilot) has demonstrated that the
effectiveness of retention measures varies with the severity of the flood. One of the aims of
FLOODsite was to provide an ex-post evaluation of instruments and measures to inform the
development of new and sustainable strategies. The methodology is now available from the work of
Task 12, but a comprehensive cross-comparison on equal grounds has not yet been performed. Hence
it is recommended that:
R2 The ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments must be applied to the many measures and
instruments in place in different Member States in order to learn from empirical results as many
preferences still rely on belief and prejudice for certain measures and instruments.
The Floods Directive makes specific mention in Article 7 of “potential adverse consequences of
flooding for human health, the environment …”. Amongst the factors which produce such adverse
consequences are the liberation transport and deposition of pollutants in floods including heavy
metals, organics and pathogens. FLOODsite Task 10 did consider pollution from floods, but further
research is needed on the spatial spread of pollutants (good data does not exist from past events) and
their persistence in the environment. It is recommended that:
R3 Further investigation is undertaken to understand the rôle of pollutants in flood risk and its
management. Issues include whether specific groups of organisms suffer from toxic stress,
change in soil chemistry caused by flooding, testing of ecotoxicological relationships based on
field observations, fluxes to and from the soil during flooding and the collection of validation
data on the observed ecological impact of toxic compounds.
It is clear that the development of flood risk management plans for the Floods Directive will require a
method which allows making decisions on when to change to another flood risk management strategy
and the effects of deciding on options for the future. The implementation of alternative and innovative
flood risk management strategies which are more sustainable in the long-term may in some cases have
obvious disadvantages for some stakeholders in the short term. It is recommended that:
R4 Further research is undertaken jointly between natural and social sciences on the transition
processes between the short and long-term view of flood risk management strategies. In
addition, for long-term decisions, research is needed on how to incorporate ‘decision-pipelines’
in the analysis of assessment and management of flood risk; on improving knowledge of
‘breakpoints’ (when developments are such that a certain strategy does not perform adequately
any more); on whether analysis in-time is able replace the assessment criterion of ‘flexibility’;
and on further development of the concept of robustness of strategic alternatives for flood risk
management.
The Floods Directive makes specific mention in Article 7 that: “Flood risk management plans shall
take into account relevant aspects such as costs and benefits …”. FLOODsite Task 9 has produced
guidelines on the evaluation of flood damages which are an important component of the appraisal of

62
costs and benefits and Task 10 has explored multi-criteria analysis (MCA) of flood risk management
activities. The Directive requires the use of such appraisal tools in developing flood risk management
plans; the FLOODsite research has identified issues that need further investigation and it is
recommended that:
R5 Further research is undertaken on assessing indirect economic damages rather than the
traditional approach to assess direct economic damages only; on the evaluation of intangible
losses such as loss of life, human injuries, environmental and cultural losses; and on
methodologies to integrate all losses over the intended life time of the flood defence system
with associated tools to define tolerable flood risk. In addition further development is needed
on the number of criteria be used in MCA to show a more complete picture of flood risk, MCA
of flood risk reduction measures including the spatial distribution of their impacts and
development of value functions for integration into the decision rule for criteria standardisation
within MCA.
The Floods Directive does not make any specific mention of the public perception of flood risks, of
what are tolerable or acceptable risks or, of how decisions are made on what proportion of national
expenditure should be applied to flood risk management. However, in paragraph 10 of the preamble
to the Directive it states: “Throughout the Community different types of floods occur … The damage
caused by flood events may also vary … Hence, objectives regarding the management of flood risks
should be determined by the Member States themselves and should be based on local and regional
circumstances.” This embodies the principle of subsidiarity in flood risk management policy and
practice. The FLOODsite research did not tackle the issue of how people compare flood risks with
other individual and societal risks, but there is a well known aversion to high consequence events.
We pose the question whether there is a government obligation to be open about standards of risk
managed and mitigated through public expenditure. Does the “public” really want to know what the
true risk is and if they knew would their behaviour or priorities change? The FLOODsite research on
risk perception community behaviour and social resilience has identified several important gaps in
understanding relating to the development and acceptance of flood risk management as a policy
framework rather than traditional flood defence. To make flood risk management become a real part
of people’s lives, not just for policy-makers, it is recommended that:
R6 Further research is necessary on the consequences of the increasing ‘privatisation’ of risks with
regard to social vulnerability and coping with flood risk; on individual, household and
institutional dimensions of social vulnerability; on how to encourage people at risk from
flooding to undertake private precautionary measures; on how to adequately address and explain
urban-rural differences with regard to social vulnerability and resilience; and on what impact
demographic changes (e.g. age, population density, occupancy rates, ethnicity, etc.) have on
preparedness, coping and long-term recovery.
7.3 Research on flood risk analysis and processes

FLOODsite Theme 1 provided some important contributions to knowledge on specific issues involve
in flood risk assessment. However in many areas knowledge is still imperfect and this feeds through
to uncertainties in the overall assessment of flood risk and the performance of flood defence measures
and infrastructure. Further scientific advances would be of value in understanding, analysing and
modelling processes in flood risk sources and pathways.
Experience shows that failures in flood defence infrastructure tend to occur due to a combination of
more that one driver. Thus there is a need to consider more than one driving factor and this implies

63
joint probability analyses. In the analysis of past flood related observations it is necessary to develop
methods to remove seasonality from the samples and any trend due to climatic change. Within the risk
sources, which essentially consist of the combination of extreme events such as storm surge water
levels and waves or river discharges and rainfall, it is recommended that knowledge gaps and
modelling weaknesses are addressed regarding the assessment of the probability of hydro-
meteorological extremes as follows.
R7 Further research is necessary on the physical basis of extrapolation fitted statistical distributions
to very rare extremes; on temporal dependencies (essential for time dependent failure modes
and stepwise determination); on the probabilistic analysis of time-series that show long-term
trends at yearly and decadal scales; on joint probability estimation, particularly for failures in
man-made or natural systems resulting from a combination of factors that exceed a threshold;
and on estimation of error bounds and the explicit presentation of such intervals in the
assessment of extreme values for failure of structures.
The strength and intensity of the risk sources determine the loading transmitted to the risk pathways
and in some cases large uncertainties remain in the transformation models up to the point of
application of defence failure probability functions, for example from uncertainties in the assessment
of morphological change. For the risk pathways, most of the knowledge gaps and modelling
weaknesses were found to be related to the assessment of the performance under environmental
loading of the defence infrastructure. There are weaknesses in conventional fault tree analysis,
particularly for cases where the load and resistance parameters are time dependent and the time
duration of the failure mechanisms as well as their time sequencing and links may be crucial for the
final outcome. It is recommended that knowledge gaps and modelling weaknesses are addressed as
follows.
R8 Further research is necessary to identify the relative importance of failure mechanisms which
have implications for the design and construction of flood defence embankments and “resistant
dykes”. Specific topics include research on the physical basis of overflow and wave
overtopping of embankments (3D-structure, temporal and spatial distribution); on limit state
equations for specific flood defence structures (e.g. single point structures) to include in
reliability analysis; on the influence of structure transitions and damage caused by animals at
earth structures; and on techniques to represent the non-homogeneity of loads and resistance
parameters along a defence line.
The Floods Directive requires the preparation of flood risk maps which show inundated areas, water
level and depth and potentially other information such as velocity. Although computational modelling
of flood movement is a relatively mature area of science, some research challenges remain especially
where hydrodynamic modelling is required as a component of more complex analyses. This may
occur in the context flood event management where the state of the system changes (e.g. with the
failure of an embankment) or in risk analysis and attribution where large numbers of realisations of the
model are needed to sample and explore a highly dimensioned risk system. It is recommended that
knowledge gaps on modelling weaknesses are addressed as follows.

64
R9 Further research is necessary to improve the representation of breach growth in defence

embankments; to improve methods to determine water surface even in case of rapid variation in
time or space; to simulate the spreading of inundation (especially in urban areas) sufficiently
rapidly to embed models in a probabilistic risk assessment framework; and to understand and
provide practical guidance on the trade-off between scale and dimensionality of modelling with
information requirements and the range of uncertainty in the simulations.
7.4 Research to support long-term decisions

Increasingly modern flood risk management demands a more complete representation of the system
(from sources, through pathways to receptors), how these might change in the future and how they
might be best managed. These are complex questions and can no longer be answered intuitively.
Modelling complex flood risk systems to support long-term decisions is a developing rather than
mature area of practice. Significant outstanding research requirements persist; not least in the
development of structured approaches to appraisal, comparison of alternative adaptive management
options and representation of future scenarios as continuous rather than discrete futures. There is no
consensus on what uncertainty can be tolerated in making flood risk management decisions and there
are issues of scaling both for the spatial scale and resolution appropriate for the decision in hand and
how to up- and down-scale data and nested models. More comprehensive demonstrations of the
overall frameworks for uncertainty analysis will aid their translation from the research domain into
practice.
FLOODsite has made initial but significant steps towards a more structured approach to decision
making. In theory rational decisions are based upon a comparison of the costs and benefits, in terms
of risk reduction, of a range of structural and non-structural interventions; also in the past few years
the importance of robust long term planning has been increasingly highlighted. However, the
evidence used to estimate risks (often against multiple criteria) and costs is almost invariably uncertain
for a variety of reasons. FLOODsite has also made progress in advancing decision support for long
term planning, but before such tools become routine significant future research and development will
be required. As decision making context becomes more complex tools will need to adapt and remain
in advance of the user need. This will include advancing beyond risk information to useful data on
uncertainty and the key sources of the uncertainty. It is concluded that:
R10 Further research is necessary on the areas of decision optimisation, uncertainty analysis and
sensitivity analysis which continue to remain far from routine practical implementation.
Research is needed on genetic algorithms, neutral networks and other system component
emulators and on innovative use of computational processing power to enable whole systems
risk based modelling for whole life system based decisions where there is a trade-off between
model complexity (accuracy) and runtime.
Long-term decisions have to be made in the context of severe uncertainty on the social, economic and
environmental drivers of the flood risk system. The approach adopted and exemplified in the
FLOODsite project has been to use scenarios and story-lines to explore the future. An appropriate
coupling is made of socio-economic scenarios with global emissions scenarios used in climate
simulations. Climate modelling undertaken for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has expressed the
range of outcomes of multi-model ensembles in terms of probability distributions. The use of
ensembles to provide information on the range of the uncertainty in future outcomes needs to be taken

65
through to subsequent impact assessments in a more comprehensive way than has been possible in the
applications of the FLOODsite examples of exploring climate impacts as reported in Section 5.3
above. It is likely that the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report currently under preparation will explore
further the issue of uncertainty in climate predictions and its use in impact assessments.
7.5 Research to support flood emergency management

Emergency management of the flood requires detection, forecasting, warning and effective and
appropriate response to the emergency. FLOODsite has made significant progress on radar hydrology
and the interpretation of radar imagery for quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE). However,
further improvements could arise from additional research:
R11 Research on radar networking, the use of additional parameters (e.g. polarimetry) and additional
data sources and the characterisation of radar QPE uncertainty all have the potential to improve
the quality of precipitation forecast information for flash floods.
More generally FLOODsite has explored methods for forecasting flash flooding in small and medium
basins and this has identified the need for protocols for flash flood observations and the potential value
of systematic archives of flash flood events across Europe. The flood forecasting approaches would
benefit from better methods for defining soil moisture conditions at the onset of the event and the
remote sensing of soil moisture status by means of satellite observations may represent a promising
data source for this purpose, at least for some European hydro-climatic environments. The threshold-
based approaches developed in FLOODsite could be further refined to incorporate knowledge about
flash flood related damages in a Bayesian utility function minimization.
The management of flood emergencies will draw upon resources both physical and institutional
developed through contingency planning. Currently evacuation models such as those developed in
FLOODsite are rarely used to inform flood emergency plans developed by emergency planners in
Europe. It is essential that flood risk managers work more closely with emergency planners in order to
achieve this but it is acknowledged that more work needs to be carried out to make evacuation models
more “user friendly” so that they are used more widely. For development of these technologies:
R12 Research and development of real-time decision support could concentrate on forecasting flood
risk through agent-based approached as other flood forecasting information becomes available
(rather than just forecasting floodwater levels) and thus enable the emergency management
agencies to prioritise their response based on real-time risks. The decision support should
incorporate uncertainties in the flood defence infrastructure performance as well as the
uncertainties from the real-time hydro-meteorological situation. Such a support tool could also
be developed into flood event scenario training environment for both decision-makers and
emergency managers.

66
8. Challenges and opportunities in an Integrated Project

8.1 Introduction
FLOODsite was amongst the first Integrated Projects to be commissioned in the Sixth Framework
Programme. Although there was no existing experience in operation of these “new instrument”
projects, the governance and management structures of FLOODsite were based upon previous
experience of Partner WL|Delft in coordinating to a successful conclusion the multi-institute, multi-
disciplinary IRMA-Sponge project funded in the European Commission Interreg programme.
This section of our final report is a reflection on the Consortium’s experience in FLOODsite as a
multi-disciplinary, multi-institute project and is set out for others to consider in undertaking similarly
sized projects in the future. These issues have not been subject to rigorous testing or analysis but by
their nature spring from our collective experience.
8.2 Project organisation, governance and direction

8.2.1 Overview
The governance of FLOODsite was designed on a loose analogy to a commercial company with
boards of executive and non-executive directors which report to the owners. For the project the
partners in the Consortium acted as the “owners”, with the Partner General Assembly being the
equivalent of the Shareholders meeting for a quoted Company. The equivalents to the executive
directors of the company were the Theme Leaders for the work programme who (with the Project
Management Advisor) constituted the Management Team. The FLOODsite Project Board acted in a
similar rôle of providing scrutiny of the management and progress of the project as would be done by
main company board. The Project Board had an independent chairman and non-executive members.
The project also had two advisory boards one on scientific and technical issues and the other providing
an external stakeholder view on application and implementation. Members of the Management Team
participated in one or the other of these Boards, which also drew members from outside the immediate
research team. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Board (STAB) reviewed the project science on
several occasions, taking reports from and questioning the task leaders; the STAB then recommended
means of improving some Task outputs. The Applications and Implementation Advisory Board (AIB)
met annually, making recommendations on the take-up of the project science. The scrutiny and
advice offered to the project team through this governance structure was helpful and made a positive
contribution to the final outcome of the work.
In addition to this project-led scrutiny of the project progress, DG Research organised an independent
external evaluation of the project annual reports.
8.2.2 The Management Team

The management structures were established at the outset of the project and they remained unchanged
although the external membership of the boards did change. The Management Team (MT) adopted
the “KIS-MIH” approach (Keep It Simple and Make It Happen) for running the project, focussing the
project administration in the simplest and most cost efficient manner, an important control mechanism
was the quarterly progress reports from each task. The MT met five to eight times each year:
• to review the project progress from quarterly progress reports from each task
• to prepare annual reports to the EC
• to resolve any problems affecting completion through dialogue with the Theme and Task Leaders
• to push forward the project integration,
• to consider and respond to the advice of the evaluators of the annual reports
• to act on the advice of the project review boards and
• to plan the communication of the project results

67
8.2.3 Team-building and workshop communication

An important part of project integration in practice is through the collaboration and coherence of the
project team. This was achieved through several mechanisms –
• task level working meetings typically of a few days,
• some secondment of staff between partners
• the annual project workshop, where all team members are invited and considerable time allowed
for tasks and groups of tasks to arrange working meetings alongside with less formal opportunities
for interaction
• the support of the Young FLOODsite self-managed network of early-career researchers on the team
• regular team newsletters giving both project coordination information and spotlights on areas of the
team’s work
• the project website, design and image intended to assist the team to identify their research with
FLOODsite rather than just their institution.
8.2.4 Young FLOODsite

Young FLOODsite was established in Year 2 of the project in response to the recommendation of the
Project Board. The Board recognised that the Integrated Project offered ideal opportunity for the early
career researchers to broaden their international experience, but this had not been part of the original
proposal for the IP. Young FLOODsite provided a forum for the “young” researchers involved in
activities of FLOODsite but it had no formal upper age limit. It was a self managing group and had to
operate without and specific budget line from the project grant.
Amongst the issues considered in Young FLOODsite were the most suitable research conditions,
facilitating and strengthening the exchange of information and experiences. It also provided a
platform for discussion of research results motivating and elaborating dissertations underpinning
Flood Risk Management. Perhaps most critically it established a basis for long term co-operation
between young researchers within an international framework. Separate web pages were created to
facilitate the networking of Young FLOODsite members and they also arranged an occasional
newsletter “Floodflash”.
The main activities were centred on the annual workshop where time was set aside for a network
meeting and an evening social event. In addition the Year 4 workshop included a Master Class with
two senior professors held an open forum on ‘Flood Forecasting and Warning’. The Master Class was
a unique opportunity for students to address senior scientists, meet peers working on similar topics,
and identify possible collaborations for the continuation of their PhD work.
Overall the activities of Young FLOODsite enhanced the experience of the younger researchers on the
project and were possible because the scale of funding of the IP allowed a “critical mass” of early
stage researchers to be engaged in the research area. In retrospect, it would have been even better for
this activity to have been included as part of the original research plan, with specific institutional
resources negotiated from across the consortium at the outset.
We recommend that the Commission should include an early-stage researchers’ network as a

recommended activity within all large-scale cooperative research projects as an additional mechanism
to the Marie Curie programme for broadening the training and international mobility and experience of
new researchers.
8.2.5 Website for management and communication

The project website (www.floodsite.net) was an important means of communication of documents and
information within the project team (Morris et al, 2006). The website was established at the outset of
the project for a Commission communication event and was later enhanced by
• a significant revision of the public web pages in Year 4 as the focus moved from team coherence
and organisation to public dissemination of the results

68
• including, on advice from our AIB, the Project Executive summary in 15 languages,
• translation of pages for some of the pilot study in the relevant national language
• the development of a paperless electronic newsletter (the “e-zine”).
8.3 Achieving the goal of an “Integrated Project”

8.3.1 FLOODsite characteristics as an Integrated Project
FLOODsite was commissioned as an “Integrated Project” (IP), one of the new instruments of FP6.
FLOODsite includes all the characteristics of an IP as described in the FP6 Task Force report
(European Commission, 2003). As described in Section 1.1 of the Task Force report, FLOODsite has
addressed a major need in society – that of managing flood risks and our research tasks have delivered
knowledge which is openly published and may be applied by the Consortium partners and others for
the public good. Section 1.2 of the task Force report describes five aspects of integration – vertical,
horizontal, activity, sectoral and financial. FLOODsite by its design and execution addressed each of
these aspects; the first three were achieved through the execution of the research and discussed below
whereas the sectoral and financial integration arose principally from the structure and financing of the
Consortium.
8.3.2 Horizontal Integration

In our research as an IP we took the requirement for horizontal integration to describe the
comprehensiveness of the project scope in covering the flood risk system with its internal interactions.
Focussing on the flood risk “system” (see Section 2.1), we understand this to comprise
• the process in the natural hazard itself,
• the impact and consequences of that hazard on people, property and the environment and
• the societal processes and actions on mitigation and management measures and instruments.
Horizontal integration also has taken place within the project with the chain of flow on information
between tasks for example the work of Tasks 4 and 6 leading into Task 7 and the close coupling of
Tasks 14 and 18, Tasks 16, 17 and 19, and the tasks on flash flooding. The approach of Theme 3 was
to provide a mechanism for the horizontal integration of the FLOODsite knowledge across disciplines
in the context of long-term planning and flood event management.
The scope of FLOODsite research was to make advances in knowledge and understanding on
particular aspects of the overall flood risk system, concentrating in the areas of the original FP6 call
for proposals. For example, FLOODsite was primarily concerned with the flooding sources of rivers,
estuaries and the coast as opposed to from inadequate drainage in urban areas. Nevertheless the
FLOODsite results have a broader application than for just these specific sources, for example the
work on economic damages from flooding. Likewise although there was no specific Task within
FLOODsite on flooding and climate change, our methodologies for flood risk analysis from Theme 1,
for flood risk management in Theme 2 and Frameworks for integration in Theme 3 all can be used to
explore risks and policy responses in a changing climate. This was discussed in more detail in Section
5.2 above.
8.3.3 Vertical and Activity Integration

The vertical integration was designed into the project from the outset through the testing the project
science from Themes 1, 2 and 3 in the pilot studies of Theme 4 which included interaction with
external stakeholders, end-users and the public. This has proved to work well. FLOODsite spanned a
range of research (both basic and applied) and included development of prototypes of decision
support. Activity integration was assured through passing knowledge from the more basic research
Tasks through to the more applied research Tasks to the pilot Tasks and then in Theme 5 for
knowledge transfer in written, web-based and face-to-face form.

69
8.4 Complexity of external linking

8.4.1 Other research projects
During Year 2, Task 32 identified approximately 150 external projects that are related to flood risk
management. The breadth of the projects identified reflects the considerable patrimony of research
funded by the Commission on flooding as a natural hazard, on coastal science and on flood forecasting
and Member States fund national programmes. Following the comments from the Evaluators on our
Year 2 report, we reported in Year3 that 79 of these links were active links between FLOODsite and
these external projects. During Year 4 the Task Leaders identified a further 9 external projects and
actions where new links had been made during the year. In all, 16 external projects had links to three
or more FLOODsite tasks as shown in Table 8.1 below. The challenge faced by the research team was
to incorporate knowledge from elsewhere as appropriate in FLOODsite whilst not compromising the
schedule of our own research, and also to provide information to others.
Table 8.1 Projects with links to three or more FLOODsite tasks

Project / Action Description
ACTIF FP5 Coordination Action on Flood Forecasting
AVV National project on Attention for Safety (the Netherlands)
CRUE FP6 ERA-NET on flood research
EFFS FP5 research project on European Flood Forecasting System
EXCIMAP Stakeholder group for implementation of the proposed EU “Floods” directive
FLOOD-ERA ERA-NET CRUE project is funded jointly by national Ministries
FORESIGHT UK Long term scenario planning for flood risk
FRMRC UK national research programme on flood risk management
GLOWA-ELBE German project on the impacts of climate change on the water cycle
HYDRATE FP6 STREP on hydrological data for flood forecasting
MDSF-2 UK national development project of flood risk analysis tools
NEWater FP6 IP developing modelling methods based on stakeholder knowledge
OSIRIS FP5 IST project on the management of inundation risks
RIMAX German national research programme on flood risk management
TE 2100 UK national flood risk management planning project for the Thames Estuary
VERIS-Elbe German national research programme on the River Elbe
8.4.2 National links with institutions and practice

Our Application and Implementation Board included eight representatives of operating agencies and
public bodies from Member States. The German partners of FLOODsite established close links to the
research funding institutions such as the German Research Council (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF). Close links with end user groups both from the coast and the Elbe
region have been maintained to keep potential end users informed and give them possibilities for
feedback on ongoing research issues. In this context, some of the pilot sites in Germany are in
constant discussion with administration and local authorities to make use from their expertise and
needs. In France, Météo-France is affiliated to the Consortium through INPG (Partner 8) in
recognition of its close ties to information used in FLOODsite and close cooperation in the research
particularly on flash-flood forecasting; this close cooperation will lead to early adoption of advances
made within FLOODsite. In Hungary, HEURAQUA (Partner 7) provided a close link to the national
flood defence activities in both the Danube and Tisza rivers. In Spain the work of UPC-LIM (Partner
13) was closely aligned with spatial planning in the Ebro Delta with specific communication events
being held between the project tasks and the public administration in Catalonia. In the UK, the
Coordinator maintained close links with national research and development activities in flood risk
management, and the FLOODsite project themes and outputs form part of the national action on
improving the scientific basis of flood risk management. Both Defra and the Environment Agency
were admitted as “affiliates” to the project consortium in recognition of the close flow of information
to these stakeholders.

70
The pilot sites in Theme 4 were all embedded in areas of local or regional concern in the countries
involved with data and information coming from external agencies and the project results informing
other work in these pilot areas in a variety of ways. Most of the pilots involved close cooperation with
agencies and authorities responsible for flood management in their areas.
8.4.3 Discussion
One of the difficulties encountered in identifying the research links is that there is no comprehensive
central point of information on current and previous projects on flood risk. Although, the ERA-NET
CRUE has now established the CRUISE database of national programmes within their network
(http://www.crue-eranet.net/cruise.asp), this taken alongside the FLOODsite linked project will
necessarily still be incomplete.
The FLOODsite database of linked projects is available to the public from the project website, but
inevitably the information in this and CRUISE will degrade over time as project based websites and
URL’s often cease to be maintained on project completion. As Coordinator of FLOODsite, HR
Wallingford has undertaken to maintain the project website available for 20 years after the project
completion, although in a static form. This will ensure the research results remain accessible for their
useful lifetime to researchers and practitioners.
The linking between FLOODsite and external stakeholders in the research, the research management
and flood management communities was a distinctive feature of the Integrated Project. In the
planning of the research “Networking” was identified as a specific project component with specific
allocation of budget. This networking outside the project team will assist the uptake and
implementation of the research results.

71
REFERENCES
Allsop, N.W.H.; Buijs, F.; Morris, M.W.; Hassan, R.; Young, M.J.; Doorn, N.; Van der Meer, J.W.;
Kortenhaus, A.; Van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M.; Dyer, M.; Redaelli, M.; Visser, P.J.; Bettess, R.;
Lesniewska, D. (2006): Failure mechanisms for flood defence structures. FLOODsite - Integrated
Flood Risk Assessment and Management Methodologies, Report T04-05-01, available from
www.floodsite.net
Borga M (2008), Real time guidance for flash flood risk management, FLOODsite report T16-08-02,
available from www.floodsite.net
D'Eliso, C. (2007): Breaching of sea dikes initiated by wave overtopping - a tiered and modular
modelling approach. Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation, Civil Engineering Faculty, Leichtweiß-Institut für
Wasserbau, Technical University Braunschweig, University Florence, Braunschweig, Florence,
142 p.; 3 Annexes.
DEFRA (2006): Flood risk to the people. Defra / Environment Agency, R&D Technical Report
FD2321/TR2.
Delrieu G (2008), Radar observation of storm rainfall for flash-flood forecasting - radar structured
algorithm system, FLOODsite report T15-08-02, available from www.floodsite.net
European Commission (2003) “Provisions for implementing integrated projects”, FP6 Instruments
Task Force, available at: http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/66622311EN6.pdf,
Document dated 12-05-03
EXCIMAP (2007): Handbook on good practices for flood mapping in Europe. Prepared by EXCIMAP
(a European exchange circle on flood mapping), 45 p.; 1 Annex.
FEMA (2003): Guidelines and specifications for flood mapping partners. Appendix D: Guidance for
coastal flooding analysis and mapping. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 177 p.
Galiatsatou, P.; Prinos, P.; Sanchez- Arcilla, A. (2008): Estimation of Extremes: Conventional versus
Bayesian techniques. Journal of Hydraulic Research, vol. 46, Extra Issue 2, pp. 211-223.
Görner C, Jatho N, Bernhofer C & Borga M (2008), Satellite observation of storm rainfall for flash-
flood forecasting in small and medium-size basins, Paper presented at FLOODrisk 2008 - The
European Conference on Flood Risk Management, Oxford, U.K, proceedings published by CRC
Press, ISBN 978-0-415-48507-4
Hall J W, Harvey H, Solomatine D & Shresta D L (2009), Development of framework for the
influence and impact of uncertainty, FLOODsite report T20-08-04, available from
www.floodsite.net
Hawkes, P.J.; Gonzalez-Marco, D.; Sánchez-Arcilla, A.; Prinos, P. (2008): Best practice for the
estimation of extremes: a review. Journal of Hydraulic Research, vol. 46, Extra Issue 2, pp. 324-
332.
Meyer, V.; Messner, F. (2006): National flood damage evaluation methods – a review of applied
methods in England, The Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Germany. FLOODsite - Integrated
Flood Risk Assessment and Management Methodologies, Task 9, Braunschweig, Germany, 44 p.
Morris, M.W.; Morris, E.M.A.; Samuels, P.G.; Van Os, A. (2006): www.FLOODsite.net Using the
Web for Research Dissemination, Team Building and Project Management, 7th International
Conference on Hydroinformatics, Sept 2006, Nice, France, 8 pp.
Morris, M.W.; Kortenhaus, A.; Visser, P.J.; Geisenhainer, P. (2008): Modelling breach initiation and
growth. Paper presented at FLOODrisk 2008 - The European Conference on Flood Risk
Management, Oxford, U.K, proceedings published by CRC Press, ISBN 978-0-415-48507-4
Olfert, A, (2007), Guideline for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments in flood risk
management, FLOODsite - Integrated Flood Risk Assessment and Management Methodologies,
report T12-07-03 available from www.floodsite.net .
Priest, S.; Wilson, T.; Tapsell, S.M.; Penning-Rowsell, E.C.; Viavattene, C.; Fernandez-Bilbao, A.
(2007): Building models to estimate risk to life for flood events. FLOODsite - Integrated Flood
Risk Assessment and Management Methodologies, no. T10-07-10, Task 10, 146 p., 6 Appendices.
Samuels P G (2005), The European Perspective and Research on Flooding, Chapter 2 of River basin
modelling for flood risk mitigation, Eds D W Knight and A Y Shamseldin, Taylor & Francis,
London, ISBN 0415383447, (2005)

72
Sánchez-Arcilla, A.; Gonzalez-Marco, D.; Doorn, N.; Kortenhaus, A. (2008): Extreme values for
coastal, estuarine, and riverine environments. Journal of Hydraulic Research, vol. 46, Special
Issue.
Stanczak, G. (2008): Breaching of sea dikes initiated from the seaside by breaking wave impacts.
Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation, Civil Engineering Faculty, Leichtweiß-Institut für Wasserbau,
Technical University Braunschweig, University Florence, Braunschweig, Florence.
Van Alphen J, van Beek E & Taal M Eds. (2006), Floods, from Defence to Management, Symposium
Proceedings, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0415391199
Zhu, Y. (2006): Breach growth in clay-dikes. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Delft, Civil
Engineering Department, Delft, The Netherlands, 231 p.

73
Annex 1 The FLOODsite reports

Document Report Title
Reference
T01-06-14 A combining analysis of three Catastrophic Precipitating Events over Western
Mediterranean region
T01-06-18 Increasing the forecasting lead-time of Weather Driven Flash-floods
T01-06-21 Spatial rainfall distribution and hydrological controls of flash-flooding
T01-06-22 Parameterisation of hydrological model for application in ungauged basins
T01-07-01 Hydrometeorological modelling for flash-flood areas
T02-06-15 Runup and sand dune erosion along the coast of Ystad
T02-06-16 Joint Probability: Dependence Mapping and Best Practice
T02-06-17 Use of Joint Probability Methods in Flood Management: A guide to best practice
T02-06-19 Inventory of Dutch datasets for extreme value analyses
T02-07-03 Report on Best Suitable Models for a Statistical Analysis of Joint Probabilities of Extreme
Event Data
T02-07-04 Hydraulic loading of flood defence structures
T03-07-01 Review of flood hazard mapping
T03-08-02 Guidelines on Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping
T04-05-01 Wave overtopping and grass cover layer failure on the inner slope of dikes
T04-06-01 Failure Mechanisms for Flood Defence Assets
T04-06-02 Description of flood defence structures for pilot sites
T04-07-03 Understanding and Predicting Failure Modes: Failure Modes for Revetments
T04-07-04 Geophysical Monitoring System (GMS)
T04-07-05 Design construction and calibration of a wave overtopping simulator
T04-07-06 Placement of smart grass reinforcement at test sections on Groningen sea dyke
T04-07-10 Air trapping phenomenon and cracking - model tests on flood embankment
T04-07-11 Laboratory Tests on the Erosion of Clay Revetment of Sea Dike With and Without a Grass
Cover Induced by Breaking Wave Impact
T04-07-12 Laboratory Experiments on the Erosion of Clay
T04-08-02 Failure mechanisms of shingle barrier beaches
T04-08-03 Erosion of embankments
T04-09-02 Qualitative and quantitative reliability analysis of holes in embankments
T05-07-02 Predicting Morphological Changes in Rivers, Estuaries and Coasts
T06-06-01 Breaching of coastal dikes. Preliminary breaching model
T06-06-02 Hydraulic model tests on breaching with and without waves
T06-06-03 Breaching Processes: A state of the art review
T06-06-06 Breaching of coastal dikes: state of the art
T06-07-01 Breaching of coastal dikes. Detailed breaching model
T06-07-02 Breaching of coastal dikes: reliability analysis and validation of the model system
T06-08-02 Modelling Breach Initiation and Growth
T06-08-11 Breach Initiation and Growth: Physical Processes
T06-08-12 Sea dike breach initiation and development
T06-09-03 Sea dikes breaching initiated by breaking wave impacts - State of the art
T06-09-04 Sea dikes breaching initiated by breaking wave impacts - Preliminary computational model
T06-09-05 Sea dikes breaching initiated by breaking wave impact - Detail computational model
T07-06-01 Preliminary reliability analysis of flood defences in the pilot site ‚German Bight Coast’
T07-06-03 Preliminary reliability analysis of flood defences in the pilot site ’Scheldt’
T07-07-02 Preliminary Reliability Analysis on the Thames
T07-07-03 Analysis and influence of uncertainties on the reliability of flood defence systems
T07-08-01 Ed. 2 Reliability Analysis of Flood and Sea Defence Structures and Systems
T07-08-02 Reliability Analysis of Flood Sea Defence Structures and Systems (Appendices)
T08-07-01 Inundation Model Evaluation
T08-09-02 Determination of inundation area (PPA04/SK/8/13) – Cookbook for preparation of Flood
Maps
T08-09-03 Flood inundation modelling - model choice and proper application

74

Reference
T09-06-01 Evaluating flood damages: guidance and recommendations on principles and methods
T09-06-05 Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception - challenges for flood damage research
T09-07-02 National Flood Damage Evaluation Methods
T10-07-06 GIS-based Multicriteria Analysis as Decision Support in Flood Risk Management
T10-07-08 An assessment of methodologies to evaluate flood losses and impacts
T10-07-10 Building a model to estimate Risk to Life for European flood events
T10-07-11 Risk to Life: Gard River Case study
T10-07-12 Modelling the damage reducing effects of flood warning
T10-07-13 Socio-economic and ecological evaluation and modelling methodologies
T10-07-14 The effects of floods and flood-induced pollution on ecosystem health
T10-09-01 Conduite à contre-courant. Les pratiques de mobilité dans le Gard : facteur de vulnérabilité
aux crues rapides
T10-09-02 Developing a conceptual model of flood impacts upon human health
T11-06-08 Risk construction and social vulnerability in an Italian Alpine Region. Country Report Italy
T11-07-01 Social Indicator Set
T11-07-08 Social vulnerability and the 2002 flood. Country report Germany (Mulde river)
T11-07-11 Vulnerability and flooding: a re-analysis of FHRC data. Country Report for England and
Wales
T11-07-12 Vulnerability, resilience and social constructions of flood risks
T11-07-14 Recommendations for flood risk management with communities at risk
T12-07-03 Guideline for ex-post evaluation of measures and instruments in flood risk management
T13-07-04 Strategies for Pre-Flood Risk Management - Case Studies and Recommendations
T13-07-06 Thames case study report
T14-08-01 Long-term strategies for flood risk management: scenario definition and strategic alternative
design
T14-09-04 Futures for the flood risk system of the Elbe River
T15-07-08 Observation of storm rainfall for flash-flood forecasting Volume 2 - Satellite structured
algorithm system (SAS)
T15-08-02 Observation of storm rainfall for flash-flood forecasting Volume 1- radar structured
algorithm system (SAS)
T16-08-02 Ed 2 Real-time Guidance for Flash Flood Risk Management
T17-07-01 Review report of operational flood management methods and models
T17-07-02 Evacuation and traffic management
T18-06-01 Development of DSS for Long-term Planning - Reviewing Existing Tools
T18-07-01 UK DSS Review
T18-07-02 Netherlands DSS Review
T18-08-03 Preliminary conceptual framework of integration ("Dresden Paper")
T18-09-02 Methodology for a DSS to support long-term Flood Risk Management Planning
T19-07-01 Review of flood event management Decision Support Systems
T19-07-03 Frameworks for flood event management
T20-08-04 Final Report
T21-07-01 GIS-based Multicriteria Analysis as Decision Support in Flood Risk Management
T21-08-03 pilot area Stropnice
T21-09-03 Estimation of the maximum physically possible precipitation in Saxony using a mesoscale
atmospheric model
T21-09-05 "Zwickauer Mulde River" - Testing regionalised meteorological forecasting / scenarios
T22-07-01 River capacity improvement and partial floodplain reactivation along the Middle-Tisza -
Scenario analysis
T22-07-02 Analysis of effects of pollution due to flooding
T22-07-03 Scenario Analysis - The Impact of Extreme Precipitation Patterns
T22-08-03 Vulnerability analysis in the Körös corner flood area along the Middle Tisza River
T22-09-02 The Development of the Basin Wide System of Flood Warning
T23-06-01 Requirements for Flash Flood Hydrometeorological Monitoring
T23-06-02 Post Flash-flood Investigations - Methodological Note
T23-09-14 Pilot Study “ Flash Flood Basins”

75

Reference
T24-08-01 Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis method for flood risk analysis
T25-06-01 Flood risk analysis for the river Scheldt estuary
T25-08-03 Final report of the Schelde Pilot Study
T26-06-02 Effects of storm impacts in the Ebro delta coast
T27-05-01 Analyses of previous vulnerability Studies in the pilot Site “German Bight Coast”
T27-08-03 Awareness of and preparedness for storm-surges in a coastal community on the North Sea
T28-09-01 Planning for Communication and Dissemination in FLOODsite
T29-09-01 Ed. 2 Flood risk assessment and flood risk management; An introduction and guidance based on
experiences and findings of FLOODsite (an EU-funded Integrated project)
T30-09-01 Ed. 2 Web-based Knowledge Transfer (the Final Report)
T31-09-02 Face- to- face knowledge transfer
T32-04-01 Ed. 2 Language of Risk: Project Definitions
T32-05-02 Protocols for Data Sharing within FLOODsite
T32-09-02 FLOODsite Fact Sheets, Summary of key project outputs
T35-06-02 Year 2 Periodic Report - Publishable Executive Summary
T35-08-11 FLOODsite: Plan for using and disseminating the knowledge
T35-09-01 FLOODsite Final Report - Volume 1, Advancement in knowledge and understanding
T35-09-02 FLOODsite Final Report: Volume 2, Overview of the FLOODsite pilots
T35-09-07 FLOODsite Integrated Project - Publishable Final Activity Report
T35-09-09 FLOODsite: Final plan for using and disseminating the knowledge
T35-09-16 FLOODsite Pilot Studies - Messages for Policy Makers
T35-09-17 Flood Risk Assessment - Summary of research in FLOODsite Theme 1

76
Annex 2 FLOODsite Consortium Partners
Role* Partner Participant name Short name Country Date of Date of

Number Code entry to exit from
project project
CO 1 HR Wallingford HRW UK 1 60
CR 2 / 46 (from WL Delft Hydraulics / WL|Delft NL 1 60
Jan 08) Deltares (from Jan 08)
CR 3 Leichtweiss-Institut fur LWI DK 1 60
Wasserbau
CR 4 Leibniz-Institute of IOER DE 1 60
Ecological and Regional
Development (IOER)
CR 5 Ecole Nationale des ENPC FR 1 60
Ponts et Chaussées
CR 6 GEO Group GEO CZ 1 60
CR 7 H-EURAqua HEURAqua HU 1 60
Water-Environmental
Consulting Engineering
Ltd
CR 8 Institut National INPG FR 1 60
Polytechnique de
Grenoble
CR 9 Joint Research Centre, JRC-IES EC 1 60
[26] IES
[Joint Research Centre, [JRC-IPSC] [EC] [1] [60]
IPSC]
CR 10 Flood Hazard Research MU/FHRC UK 1 60
Centre (Middlesex
University)
CR 11 University of Potsdam UniPo DE 1 60
CR 12 Technical University TUD NL 1 60
Delft
CR 13 Universitat Politècnica UPC ES 1 60
de Catalunya
CR 15 University of Bristol UniBristol UK 1 60
CR 16 University of Padova UniPad IT 1 60
CR 17 University of Twente UT NL 1 60
CR 18 University of WUR NL 1 60
Wageningen
CR 19 University of Lund UniLund SE 1 60
CR 20 University of Kiel CAU DE 1 60
CR 21 Water Resources VITUKI HU 1 60
Research Centre
CR 22 Stichting IHE Delft IHE NL 1 60
CR 23 University of Rome UR3 IT 1 60

77
Role* Partner Participant name Short name Country Date of Date of

Number Code entry to exit from
project project
CR 24 Sogreah Consultant SAS SOG FR 1 60
CR 27 Polish Academy of IBW PL 1 60
Sciences Institute of
Hydroengineering
CR 28 Instituto Superior IST PT 1 60
Tecnico
CR 29 Aristotle University of AUTh GR 1 60
Thessaloniki
CR 31 University of Plymouth UOP UK 1 60
CR 32 Cemagref CEMAGREF FR 1 60
CR 33 Istituto di Sociologia ISIG IT 1 60
Internazionale di
Gorizia
CR 35 Catholic University of UCL BE 1 60
Louvain
CR 36 Consultants for INFRAM NL 1 60
Infrastructure Appraisal
and Management
CR 37 University of Bologna UniBo IT 1 60
CR 39 Laboratory of CTU CZ 1 60
Ecological Risks in
Urban Drainage
CR 40 Group of Applied GRAHI-UPC ES 1 60
Research in
Hydrometeorology
CR 43 Dresden University of TU Dres DE 1 60
Technology
CR 44 UFZ (Centre for UFZ DE 1 60
Environmental
Research)
CR 45 University of Newcastle UNew UK 16 60
*CO = Co-ordinator
CR = Contractor
[NB Names in this table are not necessarily the same as the legal entity names on the contract. These names are
as translated to English or the more commonly used organisation names.]

78
View publication stats

Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies FLOODsite

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies FLOODsite

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies FLOODsite

Technical Report · March 2009

Paul Graham Samuels F. Klijn

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 View project

XtremRisK View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FLOODsite Final Report

Report Number T35-09-01

Deliverable Number: D35.1

FLOODsite is co-funded by the European Community

FLOODsite Final Report - Volume 1: Advancement in Knowledge

© 2009 Members of the FLOODsite Consortium

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

Page intentionally blank

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

2. The flood risk system 7

3. Advances in scientific understanding 14

4. Relevance of FLOODsite to the Floods Directive 48

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

5. Interaction between components 50

6. Lessons learned and areas of difficulty 58

7. Next steps for research 61

8. Challenges and opportunities in an Integrated Project 67

Annex 1 The FLOODsite reports 74

Annex 2 FLOODsite Consortium Partners 77

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

1.1.2 Scope and ambition of FLOODsite

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

1.1.3 Organisation and governance of the research

Figure 1.1 Overall project structure

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

1.1.4 Specific Objectives of the FLOODsite Themes

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

Theme 4 – Pilot application sites

1.2 The European “Floods” Directive

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

Figure 1.3 Implementation of the Floods Directive 1

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

1.3 Scope and layout of the report

Volume 1 is set out in the following manner:

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

2. The flood risk system

2.1.2 Scope of the flood risk system

Thus the totality of flood risk system analysed in FLOODsite encompassed:

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

2.2 Analysing the state of the flood risk system

Risk is a function of probability, exposure and vulnerability. Often, in practice, exposure is

Risk = (probability) x (consequence)

“Probability multiplied by consequence in which the multiplication is to be understood as

Risk = function (probability, consequence)

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

o Susceptibility - is the propensity of a particular receptor to experience harm. This describes

2.3 Integrated flood risk management

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

The basic characteristics of the IFRM therefore seek to:

2.4 Measures and Instruments

The broad definitions in the Language of Risk are:

T35_09_01_FLOODsite_ISAR_Volume_1_V2_0_P01.doc 14 April 2009

Table 2.1 Categorisation of measures and instruments (after Olfert, 2007)

Class Category Examples