An integrated quantitative framework to support design of resilient alternatives

to manage urban flood risks

Marcelo Gomes Miguez

Accepted Article
COPPE-UFRJ, Universidade Feral do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, CT – Sala I206, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro/RJ – Cep:
21941-909, Brazil; marcelomiguez@poli.ufrj.br (corresponding author)
Associate Professor, D.Sc.

Igor Pinheiro Raupp

CEPEL, Centro de Pesquisas de Energia Elétrica-Departamento de Otimização Energética e Meio
Ambiente, Brazil.
Avenida Horácio Macedo, 354 - Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro/ RJ - 21941-911, Brazil
Researcher, M.Sc.

Aline Pires Veról

PROARQ-FAU-UFRJ, Universidade Feral do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Av. Pedro Calmon, 500 – Prédio da FAU/Reitoria, Sala 422, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro/RJ
– Cep: 21941-901, Brazil
Adjunct Professor, D.Sc.

Acknowledgment
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior- Brasil
(CAPES) - Finance Code 001. We also would like to acknowledge the Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico- Brasil (CNPq) for supporting this research.

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not
been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which
may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this
article as doi: 10.1111/jfr3.12514

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 An integrated quantitative framework to support design of resilient alternatives
to manage urban flood risks

Abstract:
Accepted Article
Urban floods can disrupt city services and cause significant damages. This study intends to

contribute to the flood control discussion by proposing a design framework combining flood risk,

resilience and economic feasibility to support decision-making among flood control alternatives.

First, a hydrodynamic model (MODCEL) simulates flood maps for different return periods. Then a

multi-criteria Flood Risk Index (FRI) is used to introduce socioeconomic variables and an integrated

Flood Resilience Index (FResI) indicates the best alternative for maintaining risks at an acceptable

level under future pressures, i.e. guaranteeing that future risks will not increase significantly. Finally,

economic feasibility is assessed, adding a benefit-cost analysis, considering the expected avoided

losses over a given time. To illustrate this discussion, two design alternatives are compared for a

project lifetime of 50 years in the Dona Eugenia watershed, in the metropolitan area of Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil. The proposed framework showed that the most complete (and initially preferred)

alternative, which considered a whole set of distributed sustainable urban drainage and river

restoration measures was not economically feasible. A variant of this alternative focusing on fluvial

floodable parks and river restoration, avoiding individual adaptations (like implementing green roofs

in existing buildings), showed more sustainable results.

Keywords: Integrated flood risk management, Resilience, Flood mitigation, Economic assessment

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Introduction
In recent decades, the occurrence of natural disasters has been increasing in number and

causing serious consequences to socioeconomic systems. Urban floods in particular play an

important role in this context, producing increasing losses (Smith, 2013; Sayers et al., 2013; World
Accepted Article
Bank, 2012; PROHIMET/CYTED/WMO, 2007). The urbanisation trend experienced by humankind

in the last two centuries has produced two different and (critically) complementary impacts:

 The urbanisation process tends to aggravate floods, due to changes introduced in the hydrological

cycle, greatly increasing impervious surfaces and suppressing natural surface water retentions,

increasing hazards.

 The urban infrastructure and economic activities in cities expose valuable elements to risk, with

increased vulnerability.

The increased urban flood risk is responsible for several possible critical situations. If a city

has to frequently deal with significant floods that paralyse economic activities, disrupt mobility,

damage housing and spread waterborne diseases, for example, this city will probably become an

untenable place to live, without recovering from losses. Urban flood prevention and mitigation are

both considered in the sustainable cities discussion and several advances have been made in the past

few decades (CIRIA, 2007; Langenbach et al., 2008). The traditional urban drainage approach,

focusing on canalisation works, is giving way to sustainable urban drainage concepts, where

recovering hydrological functions is a key factor. Besides this, the role of urban planning and land

use control within the urban flood discussion is often stressed (Holz et al., 2007; Chocat et al., 2001).

In general, sustainable drainage solutions also involve the opportunity to revitalize the cityscape.

These solutions tend to be expensive, however, so beside flood control, a set of wider benefits should

be considered to make these solutions viable.

A sustainable solution has to comprise environmental, social, and economic aspects – so, it is

important to find a compromise between natural and social needs, but also with a benefit-cost ratio

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 greater than one. It is important to note that balancing urban flood problems is not simple and it

means more than just reducing flood depths. Risk reduction initiatives in vulnerable areas need to

integrate flood control measures with the urban planning process. This action involves using urban

watercourses as valuable assets in the urban landscape, enhancing biodiversity, while revitalising
Accepted Article
city areas (previously degraded by floods) and targeting a healthier environment (Burian et al., 2002;

Brown et al. 2008, Fletcher et al., 2014, Jha et al., 2012; Ministério das Cidades, 2004).

Currently the main goal is not only to reduce flooding, but to assess flooding consequences

on the socioeconomic system, reducing flood risks and preparing the city to respond to future

challenges. The available literature shows some quantitative methods to approach flood risk

assessment (see, for instance, Escuder-Bueno et al., 2012; Zonensein et al., 2008, among others)

bringing new perspectives regarding flood management.

Miguez and Veról (2016) designed a tool called FResI (Integrated Flood Resilience Index)

aiming to include a resilience measure in the decision-making process when comparing different

design concepts. The FResI provides a mean value of resilience, integrated in the watershed scale,

comparing flood risk behaviour in the future in relation to its values in the present. Both moments

(present and future) are also considered without any flood control measure and modified by different

project alternatives. Therefore, this approach considers the urban flood problem including resilience

concerns, related with the capacity of the city to maintain flood risk under control over a period of

time. The FResi is part of a framework originally proposed by Veról (2013), in which the urban

flood problem is approached step by step initially considering a diagnosis of the current situation,

applying hydrodynamic models for comparison with the previous natural configuration. These two

setups (past and present configurations) are the base references for discussing and designing flood

control alternatives. Then flood risks are assessed using a multi-criteria index to guide actions to the

most fragile places. Last, the FResi is calculated to obtain the best project configuration to increase

the capacity of the system to respond to future challenges. This conceptual evaluation indicates the

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 best qualitative alternative (lower risks with higher resilience), but this alternative is not checked

against its economic feasibility, so the economic premise may fail: overspending for only marginal

improvement (diminishing returns). In fact, the best choice is not really known while the economic

evaluation is still missing – this is a gap in this conceptual framework. The study presented here
Accepted Article
departs from the previous work to fill this gap, introducing an economic evaluation in the conceptual

framework built by Miguez and Veról (2016). To do this, we identified, among different available

studies on risk management, a useful proposal that fills this gap. Tsakiris (2014) offered a risk

assessment method integrated over time, considering a set of return periods (instead of a single one),

with the goal of reducing damages in the long run. In this way, one can select a project that reduces

losses from flooding, including economic aspects in the assessment framework.

To illustrate the applicability of this new approach, after developing the methodological

framework, we present a case study of the Dona Eugênia River, located in the metropolitan area of

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Hydrologic risks and sustainable cities

One could say (in a free and non-exhaustive interpretation) that a sustainable city is the one

capable of consistently meeting, with a positive balance, the expected social functions, guaranteeing

quality of life and adequate housing to all its inhabitants, providing distributed access to essential

services and resources, integrating the built and natural environments, but recognizing the limits

imposed by the latter, and being resilient, safe and economically viable.

This concept, however, just intends to show how vast this definition is and how difficult it is

to work with the sustainable city concept. A sustainable city is not static – it has to sustain its

performance and is not allowed to transfer problems anywhere in space or time. In this context, the

concept of resilience becomes part of the discussion. The definition of resilience, often present both

in current urban planning and in flood risk discussions, tends to refer to the ability of a system to

continue resisting, even when subjected to stressful conditions; the ability of the system to quickly

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 recover its functions and to continue offering its services; and the ability of the system to recover

from structural/material damages. These characteristics approximate the concept of resilience to the

concept of sustainability, since both involve sustaining a positive result over time (UNISDR, 2012).

However, sustainability is not easy to materialize in quantitative terms and it is possible to find
Accepted Article
conflicting issues. It is usual, for example, to discuss sustainable cities by focusing on energy savings

and low carbon emissions (The Scottish Government, 2012; Norman et al., 2006). Compact cities

favouring multiple uses tend to be more sustainable (Dieleman et al., 2004), meeting the previously

cited criteria and consuming less space and resources. However, what happens if the compact city is

too compact, too impervious, and lacks space to accommodate urban storm waters? It will eventually

suffer from severe flooding. This situation does not negate the initial concepts, regarding

compactness and multiple uses, but complementary design references have to be added. In this case,

the limits imposed by the natural processes developed in the watershed where the city lies have to be

respected by the built environment.

The sustainable concepts applied to urban drainage design originally focused on reorganizing

flood flows, diminishing the impacts caused by the urban environment on the hydrological cycle.

Besides this, an increasing concern associated with integrating drainage solutions within urban

revitalisation projects has arisen from the sustainable urban drainage discussion, offering new

multifunctional landscapes to the neighbouring communities. More recently, risk management is

being highlighted and progressively incorporated in design decisions, intending to reduce losses.

As a starting point to assess flood risks in a particular watershed, it is necessary to clarify the

definition of risk. Many authors define risk as the product of hazard and vulnerability, where hazard

is the source of potential harm and vulnerability is the feature that aggravates damages to a system.

Additionally, the concept of resilience appears as a compensatory factor acting to reduce

vulnerabilities. In short terms, it is associated with the capacity to continue resisting over time and to

recover from damages suffered.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 The literature contains several ways to measure resilience. One of them is the assumption of a

welfare function combining a sort of lifeline or variables of interest (such as quality-of-services) in

an aggregated resilience index. Indexes are tools able to support planning and management. They

have an integrating character and are prepared to translate into one value the complexity of the real
Accepted Article
situation, using information related to distinct and diverse indicators. Thus, one can make

comparisons in space and time, reflecting the combined effects of a particular set of indicators

(Zonensein et al., 2008). Indeed, indexes are not expected to be able to explain the whole process

with full responses, but they are very useful to give insights in advance and to complement the

decision framework.

Batica et al. (2013), as part of the Collaborative Research on Flood Resilience in Urban areas

(CORFU Project), developed a method taking into account different spatial scales and considering

five dimensions: natural, physical, social, economic and institutional. Among other examples, the

Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI), developed by Joerin et al. (2014), was tailored to climate

hazards, such as cyclones, droughts, floods, and heat waves. Suárez et al (2016) built the Urban

Resilience Index considering a social-ecological perspective, identifying factors that foster urban

resilience. Serre and Heinzlef (2018) developed a resilience index called Global Resilience, in terms

of a holistic resilience approach, based on three indicators: social, urban and technical. The

introduction of a technical component responds to urban networks effects and emphasizes the

importance of taking into account cascading effects in resilience analysis. In this case, the cascading

effects refer to a chain of events due a flood affecting the city, with negative consequences in city

services and critical infrastructure (Nones and Pescaroli, 2016). Renschler et al. (2010) proposed the

PEOPLES Resilience Framework to measure disaster resilience for a community, considering seven

dimensions: population and demographics, environmental/ecosystem, organized governmental

services, physical infrastructure, lifestyle and community competence, economic development and

social-cultural capital. The management of the built environment to better accommodate

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 environmental restrictions and to recover hydrologic functions, while searching for a configuration

that also meets urban social needs with lower damages is in line with the principles that should guide

a sustainable city with respect to urban floods and storm water management.

Methods
Accepted Article

Considering the previous discussions, here we point to sustainable solutions regarding flood

control. However, although pointing to a specific theme, sustainability still has to be considered, as

said before, in its three dimensions: social, environmental and economic. Therefore, it is useful to

propose a framework for this quantitative assessment. Considering this aim, we established some

premises to compose a framework for assessing flood control projects:

 It is necessary to find a solution to the flood problem and stop the natural and urban degradation

cycle. This means merging two main concepts: urban river restoration, applied to wetlands and

fluvial space, and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) covering distributed measures in

the watershed.

 The river restoration approach (e.g., http://www.therrc.co.uk/; www.ecrr.org; www.cirf.org)

seeks to give room to floods, recovering or enhancing the river morphology and adapting it to

store storm waters in flood plains and to release it properly, in order to control downstream

discharges.

 The SUDS approach (CIRIA, 2007/) acts in a distributed way on the watershed, reorganising

flow patterns, interacting with the urban landscape and also providing habitat and other functions

for those using the target areas, including the local community.

 These two concepts provide technical tools to face social and environmental challenges.

 Mathematical modelling is needed to quantitatively test several alternatives against reference

scenarios - the forecasting ability of the model is something valuable in this context.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

  A multi-criteria approach may be useful to quantitatively assess the relative performance of the

alternatives under different criteria, considering the environmental, social, and economic

dimensions.

 Lastly (but very important to sustain solutions in time), the economic efficacy of the candidate
Accepted Article
alternatives has to be verified (quantitatively) in benefit-cost terms so that the balance for the

chosen alternative should be at least equal to one. When considering public investments, with

social, urban and environmental outcomes, the benefit-cost analysis just needs to guarantee that

there is no monetary loss. If the result is better than this, with a net positive benefit, we assume

success has been attained.

Regarding the main discussion in this work, Veról (2013) presented a framework for

assessing flood control projects in a broad context. This framework comprises a hydrodynamic flood

model (MODCEL), a risk assessment index (FRI) and an integrated resilience index (FResI) to score

design alternatives, considering their capacity to maintain low flood risks over time (even if design

standards are surpassed).

The hydrodynamic model MODCEL was developed at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

and can be found in Mascarenhas and Miguez (2002) and Miguez et al. (2017), with some examples

of its use available in Miguez et.al (2009, 2014), and Nardini and Miguez (2016). This is a pseudo

two-dimensional model based in the flow cell concept (Zanobetti et al., 1970). The Flood Risk Index

(FRI) was developed by Zonensein et al. (2008) to measure the flooding risks related to an urban

environment and the consequences of the decisions to attenuate the problem. This is a quantitative

multi-criteria index ranging from 0 to 100, combining sub-indexes regarding flooding characteristics,

highlighting flood levels, flow velocity and flooding duration, and local vulnerability and exposure

characteristics, encompassing dwelling density, material losses, sanitation conditions and traffic

disruption. Smaller values of this index represent lower risks. In the present work, however, we do

not include flow velocities and traffic disruption in the calculation. Although available, these

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 indicators were considered of minor importance in the specific case study developed. Flow velocities

are small due to the nearly flat watershed areas where the city grew. Besides that, most of the

floodable streets are local and equally important. Table 1 shows the components of the index, while

equation (1) shows the FRI formulation. Note that the weights may be differently defined, in each
Accepted Article
case, depending on the decision maker’s judgement.

Table 1: FRI indicators (adapted from Miguez et al., 2016)

Sub- Sub-
Indicator
inde index Indicators Meaning
Weights
x weights
 Flood maximum depth is directly related
to almost all aspects of flood damages,
Depth ID pD = 0.67
affecting properties, traffic, urban
services and infrastructure.
Flood Properties


(Hazard)

The duration factor is composed of three

thresholds, for which flooding time
qFP = 0.50
remaining above them is computed and
weighted. The first one refers to street
Duration I DF
pDF = 0.33 flooding affecting pedestrians; the second
Factor
one refers to traffic blockage and the third
one refers to inundated buildings. The
more the flood remains above a threshold,
the worse the loss is.


(Exposure + Vulnerability)

Represents the number of people, goods

Dwelling I DD
pDD = 0.60 and infrastructure exposed and subjected
Density
to risk.
Consequences

 Represents the value of the goods and

Income per
qC = 0.50 I In pIn = 0.30 infrastructure subjected to risk, indicating
Capita
vulnerability to possible economic losses.

 Represents possible damages to

Inadequate
I IS pIS = 0.10 population health, indicating vulnerability
Sanitation
to dissemination of water borne diseases.

FRI  I D . p D  I DF . p DF  xI DD . p DD  I In . p In  I IS . p IS  C
q FP q
(1)

To calculate the FRI, the indicators usually represent different inputs with different units.

Therefore, all the indicators were normalized to be made non-dimensional and varying from 0 to 1.

For example, the local density, per census tract, was divided by a reference density, in this case

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 representative of the threshold between the third and fourth highest density quartiles for Mesquita. In

another example, the depth indicator was related to a percentage of loss, in which the depth of 1.25

m was taken as 1 (the highest value in the scale). The complete discussion on this parametrization

can be found in Zonensein et al. (2008).

Accepted Article
The Integrated Flood Resilience Index (FResI) was presented in Miguez et al. (2016). It seeks

to evaluate the resilience of an alternative design solution for urban flood control, by assessing its

future response considering an adverse flooding situation, but different from the one that the project

was designed for, assessing if the project layout is able to maintain flood risks at low levels when

facing future challenges. This index scale ranges from 0 to 100% and is composed of the product of

two parts: the first one measures the loss of the alternative efficiency in an adverse future situation

and the second one compares the alternative efficiency in this future with the alternative of having

done nothing to mitigate floods. That is, this result offers a vision of how an alternative becomes

obsolete in a different future condition and how the watershed would behave if this alternative was

not implemented. Higher values of this index represent better performance. Figure 1 illustrates the

resilience behaviour of one alternative, while equation (2) shows the FResI formulation.

Figure 1: Variables considered in FResI calculation for computing the integrated resilience of a design
alternative behaviour (Miguez et al., 2016)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

  ( FRI PrFuture
oject  FRI Pr oject )
Pr esent
  FRI Doing
Future
nothing  FRI Pr oject
Future

FResI  1      (2)
 FRI PrFuture
oject  
Future
FRI Doing nothing 

The hydrodynamic model (MODCEL) helps to understand the flood patterns, diagnose the

current situation and simulate design alternatives’ behaviour. FRI reveals risky areas and
Accepted Article

individualizes risk components, helping to prioritize actions in the watershed. FResI highlights the

alternatives that can sustain low risk results over time. With the help of these tools, the “best” design

alternative can be chosen, in technical terms, considering its capability of reducing risks and

providing a healthy and resilient environment. However, it is still necessary to be aware of its

economic feasibility. The alternative costs have to be compatible with the protection offered and the

losses avoided. If costs are greater than benefits, this is not a sustainable solution.

This methodological gap in the proposed framework was filled in this study by adding a

systemic approach to evaluate the flood risk losses, developed by Tsakiris (2014). According to this

author, hazard is a potential source of damage that may occur at different times, with different

magnitudes, and it can be described by a time series “H(t)”. If “H(t)” is a random process, the hazard

event can be described by a theoretical probability density function. Thus, the probability of

occurrence of the hazard event or its return period can be estimated according to a conventional

frequency analysis. To assess the overall destructive power of the hazard, one can use the expected

value of the damage.

According to the National Research Council (2000), the expected annual damage (EAD) is

the average value of the damages caused by floods, considering different annual exceedance

probabilities over a long period of years, according to equation (3):

EAD   D p dp
1

0
(3)

Where:

p – is the probability of a flood event within a year (the inverse of the return period); and

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 D(p) – is the associated value of damages, which can be estimated based on the value of the

inundated structures and on the depth of inundation of the floodplain.

The integral is solved for the return period associated to D(p) = 0 (where no damage occurs)
Accepted Article
to an infinitely large event. So, to solve equation 3, it is necessary to determine the probability

distribution of the flood events, their depths and the associated damages. In general, a damage

probability curve is built based on different flood return periods (Yu et al., 2013)

According to Tsakiris (2014), vulnerability can be defined as a measure of the degree of

susceptibility to damage from hazardous phenomenon or activity to a particular element. If the

system is improved by flood protective measures, it will be subject to smaller damages, so the

improved system will have lower vulnerability. Thus, the vulnerability can be translated into a real

number between 0 and 1, where 0 represents the totally protected system and 1 the totally

unprotected system. These values for vulnerability can be obtained by the following procedures:

 Vulnerability in the present situation is taken as the reference alternative (named as ALT.0 here)

and represented by 1 (as if it was totally unprotected – although no system is really totally

unprotected, this is the lowest protection level to be considered in the context of designing flood

control alternatives for an existing system).

 The values of the losses are computed for the reference alternative ALT.0, considering a set of

events that covers different probabilities of occurrence during an established design horizon . In

this study, we use return periods of 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 1000 years to estimate losses over

a horizon of 50 years (defined to coincide with the estimated useful life of residential buildings).

Note that the Poisson distribution is the discrete probability distribution that gives the number of

events occurring in a given time period, considering the average number of times the event

occurs over that time period. This is the case when we are assessing the probability of occurrence

of a certain event of a given return period (or greater) in a horizon of time, given the average

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 number of times this event is expected to occur. This distribution is usual in hydrology practices

to represent the chance that a given event with a given return period or greater will occur in a

period of time.

 By integrating the curve of losses x probabilities, we can find the total loss estimated to occur in
Accepted Article
the total project horizon, if the profile of losses is maintained in the course of time, similarly to

what happens in the current situation, which was used as reference for all flood losses

calculations. This assumption does not consider the possibility of the system changing through

time, which means that we are not modelling the urban evolution through the project horizon.

 Introducing a design alternative (called ALT.1, ALT.2,…, ALT.n) and repeating the process, it is

possible to obtain the total losses estimated in the long run. Dividing this value by the one

obtained in the previous step, a reduction in vulnerability is calculated.

 The costs of ALT.n have to be calculated. The benefits associated with this alternative will be

given by the avoided losses (integrated ALT.0 losses minus integrated ALT.n losses). If benefits

at least equal costs ( B / C  1), the alternative may be validated and considered feasible. It is

expected that wider benefits other than reducing losses also occur, with environmental

improvement, expanded recreational areas, opportunities to increase urban biodiversity and urban

revitalisation (with positive impacts on real estate markets), among others. These benefits are not

counted here.

This analysis complements Veról’s framework (2013) and composes a set of tools, together

with MODCEL, FRI and FResI, which can be used to support design decisions on flood control

projects. Next, we present a case study regarding a flood control project proposed in a city of the

metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This particular project is the same one presented in the

FResI development (Miguez et al., 2016) and was chosen as the most resilient alternative. However,

at that moment, no economic assessment was made (this step was envisioned for future studies).

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Case Study
The Dona Eugenia watershed is located in the metropolitan area of Rio de Janeiro, in two

cities of the Baixada Fluminense region (Nova Iguaçu and Mesquita). According to data from the

Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE, 2010), its territory covers 18 km² and has a
Accepted Article
population of approximately 170,000 inhabitants. The river originates in Gericinó/Medanha

Environmental Protection Area and runs through the city, with an extension of approximately 6 km

crossing urban areas (Lourenço et al, 2015). The main problems identified in the watershed were:

intensive land use and irregular settlements on the river banks; lack of vegetation in the urban

riverine areas; silting of the river at several points and waste disposal directly in the watercourse. As

a consequence of this picture, the watershed suffers recurrent flooding problems, affecting about

80% of its population, and both the natural and built environment are degraded. It is important to

note that the hydrodynamic model was calibrated in a previous work, using reference flood

discharges in two river sections and a distributed flood map, based on interviews with the local

population. The current situation is our ALT.0.

According to the problems currently faced in the watershed, Miguez et al. (2016), departing

from the original work of Veról (2013), found that the following alternative produced the best results

in terms of flood control, risk reduction and resilience increase:

River Restoration + Sustainable Urban Drainage (named ALT.1):

The approach of river restoration includes the demand for a more consistent balance between

the needs of humans and the dynamics of nature, offering effective and more sustainable

opportunities to address the problem of flooding (IFRC, 2006; Gusmaroli et al., 2011). This

alternative sought to recuperate the river banks and riverine areas, reconnecting the river with its

floodplains, to include multifunctional landscapes (with floodable parks), permeable areas and green

paths along the river (restoring storage capacity), forming, whenever possible, a mosaic with the

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 remaining natural landscape (Figure 2), reducing environmental fragmentation. The total cost of

these measures in Dona Eugenia watershed corresponded to 11.2 million dollars (33.6 million Reais,

in Brazilian currency), consisting of 4.2 million to implement the fluvial parks, squares and green

areas, and 7 million to relocate 600 low income families from risky river bank areas to new housing.
Accepted Article
Sustainable urban drainage implies that urban flooding cannot be transferred in space or time

(Loggia et al., 2012), so urban drainage systems should be integrated with the expected urban growth

and the resulting landscape (Miguez et al., 2007). This alternative sought to alleviate the problem of

flooding by applying on-source techniques to reduce runoff. According to the local characteristics of

the studied watershed, the techniques considered in the proposed design were: green roofs,

permeable pavements and on-site detentions (Figure 3). From aerial images they were estimated by

sampling areas to receive each of the techniques proposed and the results were spatialized around the

whole watershed. The total cost for adapting the existing buildings reached 13.9 million dollars (45.2

million Reais) – the major part related to green roof adaptation. The pervious pavements in the

public areas were estimated to cost 1.2 million dollars.

An interesting observation is that in the ALT.1 proposal, part of the costs should be public

investments (the various new parks and the pervious pavements in public areas), and part should be

private (detention tanks and green roofs). In order to accommodate this difference, a third alternative

was conceived (a project design variant), considering only the public investment scenario, which we

call ALT.2. This alternative should cost 12.4 million dollars.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

Area to be relocated
Area intended for
controlled expansion
(a)
Fluvial park connecting the city to the existing environmental preservation area

(b)

7.0m

Example of a multifunctional landscape inside 7.0 to 9.0m

the urban grid, integrating the fluvial flood 6.5m
plain with urban uses in a public square 6.5m
7.0m
7.0m

(c)
Recovered wetlands in low-lying areas with
storage capacity in a floodable fluvial park

Figure 2: River restoration – examples of actions in the (a) upper, (b) middle and (c) lower reaches of
Dona Eugênia River. Source: Lourenço, 2013.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

(a) (b)
(i) (i)
roofroof
toptop
garden,
garden, (ii) (ii)
rainrain
barrel,
barrel,
disconnected from
disconnected drainage
from net.net.
drainage collecting roofroof
collecting toprunoff.
runoff.
(c)

Figure 3: Conceptual examples of sustainable drainage action – (a) green roofs, (b) detention tanks and (c)
pervious pavements.

Project Analysis
Seven different return periods were used to cover the probability curve from 0 to 1. These

return periods referred to: 5; 10 (defined as reference for the minor drainage design); 25

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 (recommended by the Brazilian Ministry of Cities for major drainage design); 50 (usually used for

design verification purposes); 100; 200; and 1000 years (this last value is unusual for drainage design

purposes, but it appears here just to represent the upper limit of the probability curve, aiming its

integration). Figure 4 shows the flood map for ALT.0, considering the reference design rainfall with
Accepted Article
25 years return period. It is possible to see how critical the problem is, with important city areas

under more than 0.50 m of inundation. The centre of the city, including the city hall, appears in the

largest dark flood spot.

0.00 – 0.10
0.11 – 0.20
0.21 – 0.30
0.31 – 0.50
0.51 – 0.70
> 0.70

Figure 4: Inundation map for ALT.0 (Veról, 2013), showing the current situation.

Damage calculation regarding the flood maps

A depth-damage function has to be introduced in the method adapted from Tsarikis (2014).

Several economic losses associated with direct damages (especially to buildings and their contents,

vehicles, public infrastructure, or commercial losses, among others) may be considered to build one

or more depth-damage functions. Each case may require a proper representation. However,

residential building losses tend to be greater than others, mainly due to the large spatial coverage of

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 this type of element in the urban fabric. Indirect costs (like those for emergency services, evacuation,

securing infrastructure, clean-up, and temporary shelter) also play a role in this discussion (Messner

et al., 2006), but they are usually more difficult to assess since they also can occur in a different time

scale and spread in space. Sometimes, if needed, it is possible to consider these costs as a percentage
Accepted Article
of the direct damages. In the case of Mesquita, the city mainly consists of residential areas. In

socioeconomic terms, just local commerce appears and part of the jobs are in the city of Rio de

Janeiro. Therefore, in this study only residential losses are calculated.

Salgado (1995) proposed a depth-damage function (adapted by Nagem, 2008) for residential

units to calculate the flood damages related with one house, analysing the Iguaçu/Sarapuí River

Basin, which contains Dona Eugenia River sub-basin. These the depth-damage curves were

established from a field investigation intending to estimate losses produced by different flood levels,

based on construction standards and building contents observed in the studied watershed. However,

this previous work did not use real damaged houses after real flooding. It was an ex-ante approach.

These depth-damage curves assumed hypotheses that reflect local reality and they were built

for different social classes (low, medium and high). These curves are divided into two parts: (i) the

building structure damage costs and (ii) the building content damage costs. Other direct costs and the

indirect costs are not considered here, although they may be not negligible. Consequently, when

calculating the benefit-cost ratio, the choice of accepting a value equal to unity becomes stronger,

because benefits associated with the avoided losses will certainly be higher than the base value

considered. Besides that, when comparing alternatives, this simplification in the depth-damage

curves tends to be acceptable due to the relative character of the decision making process, once

alternatives will be compared under consistent conditions.

The building structure damage cost (BSD), represented by equation (4), refers to the value of

damaged construction items, taking into account physical attributes such as type of structure, floor

area, number of floors and quality of construction, updated by a physical depreciation factor that can

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 vary depending on the age of the structure and its conservation status. In practical terms, this factor is

assumed here to be 0.50, reflecting an average situation.

BSD  0,50  CUB  PSD A (4)

Where:
Accepted Article

CUB – Construction unit basic cost (R$/m²) – this information is provided by the construction

industry and is easily obtainable;

PSD – Percentage of the building structure that was damaged by flooding – this percentage is

adapted from the original work of Salgado (1995) (see Table 2) and depends on the flood depths;

A – Built flooded area (m²) – this area is related with a standard average area defined by social

classes.

The building content damage cost (BCD), represented by equation (5), refers to the

replacement cost of damaged items inside the building, determined by the lowest market value of a

similar new item.

BCD = CTBC.PCD (5)

Where:

CTBC – standard costs of typical building contents (R$) (according to different social classes;

PCD – Percentage of contents damaged, adapted from the original work of Salgado (1995), varying

with flood depths (see Table 2).

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Table 2: Percentage of building structure and contents damaged (adapted from Salgado, 1995)

Building Structure - PSD

Income
Water depth (m) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50 3.00
High % of damage  0.00 0.09 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.25
Medium % of damage  0.00 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.23
Accepted Article
Low % of damage 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.22

Content - PCD
Income
Water depth (m) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.50 3.00
High % of damage  0.00 0.27 0.35 0.37 0.60 0.61 0.64 0.68 0.74 0.75 0.76
Medium % of damage  0.00 0.31 0.39 0.39 0.57 0.57 0.61 0.65 0.73 0.73 0.74
Low % of damage  0.00 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.71 0.73 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82

The building structure and content costs for one home are multiplied by the number of

flooded homes in each alternative assessed for each return period event to find the total cost of each

specific event. These results are shown in Table 3. All damage costs were brought to present values.

Note that the occurrence probability (p) associated with each return period was calculated

considering a probability density function of the occurrence of a given return period rainfall within a

horizon of 50 years (using Poisson Distribution). From the flood maps that specify the maximum

water level in each cell, it was possible to calculate the damage cost in each cell for each of the RPs

considered, using the depth-damage function. The calculation of the total losses during the 50-year

horizon considered was obtained by the integral of the damage costs x probability curve, shown in

Figure 5. This integration is shown in Table 4.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Table 3: Damage costs related to each return period considered

Damage costs of one event (in dollars)

Probability of
Return occurrence of at
period of least one event in ALT.0 ALT.1 ALT.2
the event the period of 50
Accepted Article
years
5 1.00 9,597,276.41 920,987.44 2,496,045.71
10 0.99 12,845,862.34 1,493,181.63 3,291,223.61
25 0.87 17,887,023.94 2,417,395.43 4,657,479.33
50 0.63 21,458,334.64 3,482,088.70 5,903,013.36
100 0.39 25,014,020.70 4,494,751.10 7,209,987.03
200 0.22 28,678,667.48 6,606,510.47 10,880,096.47
1000 0.05 37,232,053.62 8,373,279.48 15,958,353.24
∞ 0 37,232,053.62 8,373,279.48 15,958,353.24

40,000,000.00

35,000,000.00

30,000,000.00

25,000,000.00
Damages ($)

20,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Probability of occurrence

ALT.0 ALT.1 ALT.2

Figure 5: Probability of occurrence x damage cost curve for each simulated alternative.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Table 4: Integrated losses during the project horizon of time

ALT.0 ALT.1 ALT.2

Total loss during 50 years ($) 24,292,900.27 4,552,509.90 7,972,086.54

The reduction in the vulnerability can then be estimated by dividing the integrated losses by
Accepted Article

the losses of the reference situation (ALT.0), as seen in Table 5. The final step is to calculate the B/C

ratio for Alt.1 and ALT.2, by dividing the avoided losses (benefits) by the implementation cost of

each alternative. The results can be seen in Table 6.

Table 5: Calculated vulnerability

Alternative Damage ($) Vulnerability

ALT.1 4,552,509.90 0.19
ALT.2 7,972,086.54 0.33
ALT.0 24,292,900.27 1.00

Table 6: B/C ratios for the considered alternatives

Benefit ($)
Cost ($) Losses ($) B/C
(avoided losses)

ALT.0 0 24,292,900.27 0 -
ALT.1 26,286,622.5 4,552,509.90 19,740,390.37 0.75
ALT.2 12,369,194.38 7,972,086.54 16,320,813.73 1.32

Table 6 shows that the alternative that most reduces flood risks and has the greatest resilience

(ALT.1) is also too expensive. However, a variation of this alternative (ALT.2), considering a river

restoration approach, incremented by multifunctional landscapes in the riverine areas and marked by

public investments in public areas, presents benefits surpassing costs, with a B/C ratio equal to 1.32.

It is important to stress two features of this watershed that explain this result:

 Low and medium income families mostly comprise the city population, which means lower

absolute losses regarding damages to building structures and contents.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

  The adaptation costs associated with the existing buildings are very high, especially for

implementing green roofs.

Considering the proposed methodological framework, ALT.2 has preference in the decision

making process. When comparing the central city area, FResI results show that ALT.2 is slightly less
Accepted Article
resilient than ALT1 (with values of 34 and 47, respectively), as shown in Miguez et al. (2016).

However, ALT.2 proved to be economically interesting, pointing toward a more sustainable solution.

Conclusions
This study proposes a methodological approach to assess design alternatives for urban flood

control in a sustainable framework by combining flood risk, resilience and economic feasibility.

Flood maps produced by a hydrodynamic model (MODCEL), for different return periods and

different design setups, were used to feed a multi-criteria Flood Risk Index (FRI), aiming to combine

flood control with socioeconomic aspects. Then, the performance of the different design alternatives

was assessed during a given period, using an integrated Flood Resilience Index (FResI), considering

the ability of the proposed alternative to continuously provide its intended results. Finally, all the

alternatives were also tested for their economic feasibility, comparing avoided losses (benefits)

calculated by depth-damage curves, during the project lifetime, and costs related with the project

implementation.

This framework proved to be useful for a broad project assessment, avoiding subjectivity in

decision-making. A case study developed for the Dona Eugenia watershed, located in the city of

Mesquita (Rio de Janeiro, metropolitan region) showed the framework’s practical application.

Among the design alternatives proposed, one of them seemed to be the natural choice as the best

design alternative. It comprised a river restoration approach, and sustainable drainage measures

distributed on the watershed, including on-source interventions in private areas. Using the proposed

framework, however, this alternative was not viable. The cost to adapt homes compromised the

feasibility of this alternative. It is important to highlight that Mesquita has a marked low-income

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 profile, which led to insufficient avoided losses to cover the adaptation burden of the households.

Our methodological approach highlighted this aspect and helped to find a more adequate design

solution.

Therefore, the proposed methods proved to be useful to support decision making about flood
Accepted Article
control design alternatives, introducing a quantitative component to assess sustainability in this

process, since it is possible to reduce floods and consequent risks in a comparable manner, designing

a solution capable of sustaining its functions over the project horizon and guaranteeing the economic

feasibility.

However, it is important to highlight that all types of mathematical models have to deal with

uncertainties. Calibration and validation are important phases of modelling to guarantee reliable

results. In the case study discussed here, the hydrodynamic model was calibrated and its results were

considered reliable. The depth-damage curves resulted from an ex-ante approach, considering typical

average households in the watershed studied. Usually, relative results comparing different modelled

situations give more accurate information than simple absolute results, which can be more

significantly affected by data uncertainties. Therefore, relative results tend to be more precise, in the

sense that departing from the same adjustments, the best alternative will tend to be correctly

identified in comparison to the others.

Complementarily, other avoided flood costs could be included in the benefit-cost analysis. In

the long term, considering a horizon of project, the analysis of the impact of a flooding event in the

urban environment could consider additional concerns, like cascading effects that floods could

produce on critical infrastructures, aggravating the negative results as discussed, for example, by

Nones and Pescaroli (2016). This is a possible improvement to be introduced in future works.

Lastly, some of the procedures in our framework can be adapted to other cases and/or other

users– this is the case of the hydrodynamic model used. Other hydrodynamic models can substitute

MODCEL with few consequences, since it produces the primary inputs related with flood maps. On

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 the other hand, FRI and FResI should be maintained as proposed, due to their roles in ranking

alternatives. Other indicators could be introduced, due to local particularities, but the main idea

should remain. In particular, however, we think that some improvement is desirable in FRI and

future steps in this research should revise the composition on the social component in this index. It
Accepted Article
would be possible to test variations of FRI formulation, using, for example, the income minus the

cost of living as an indicator of possible householder savings and consequent recovery capacity after

flooding. This change would also lead to the revision of the indicator used for economic losses,

which could be addressed, for example, by the level of urban services in the vicinity and the local

construction standards.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 References
ABEP (Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa), 2003, Critério de Classificação Econômica

Brasil. Disponível na página: www.abep.org

Argue, J.R., 2004, WSUD: Basic Procedures for “Source Control” of Stormwater – A Handbook for
Accepted Article
Australian Practice. Adelaide: Urban Water Resources Centre, University of South Australia.

Batica, J., Gourbesville, P., Fang-Yu, H., 2013, Methodology for Flood Resilience Index, In:

International Conference on Flood Resilience: Experiences in Asia and Europe. United

Kingdom.

Brown, R., Keath, N., Wong, T., 2008, “Transitioning to Water Sensitive Cities: Historical, Current

and Future Transition States”. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Urban

Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Burian, S.J.; Edwards, F.G., 2002, Historical perspectives of urban drainage, Global Solutions for

Urban Drainage, In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Urban Drainage,

Portland, September 2002.

CIRF – Centro Italiano per la Riqualificazione Fluviale, 2006, La riqualificazione fluviale in Italia:

linee guida, strumenti ed esperienze per gestire i corsi d'a cqua e il territorio. 1ª ed. Nardini A

& Sansoni G, editores. Venezia: Mazzanti.

Chocat, B., Krebs, P., Marsalek, J., Rauch, W. & Schilling W., 2001, Urban Drainage Redefined:

from Stormwater Removal to Integrated Management. Water Science and Technology, Vol.

43, No. 5, pp. (61–68).

CIRIA, 2007, The SUDS Manual, by Woods-Ballard, B.; Kellagher, R.; Martin, P.; Bray, R.;

Shaffer, P. CIRIA C697.

COPPETEC, 2009, Plano Diretor de Recursos Hídricos, Recuperação Ambiental e Controle de

Inundações da Bacia do Rio Iguaçu-Sarapuí, Laboratório de Hidrologia e Estudos do Meio

Ambiente, COPPE/UFRJ.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J.T., Scott, M.S., 2000, Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a

case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann. Association of American

Geographers, 90(4), p. 713-737

Dieleman, F., Wegener, M., 2004 , Compact City and Urban Sprawl. Built environment, Vol. 30, No.
Accepted Article
4, pp. (308-323)

Elliott, A.H., Trowsdale, S.A., 2007, A Review of Models for Low Impact Urban Stormwater

Drainage. Environmental Modelling and Software.

Escuder-Bueno, I., Castillo-Rodríguez, J.T., Zechner, S., Jöbstl, C., Perales-Momparler, S., Petaccia,

G., 2012, A quantitative flood risk analysis methodology for urban areas with integration of

social research data, In: Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 12, pp (2843-2863).

Fletcher T.D., Shuster W., Hunt W.F., Ashley R., Butler D., Arthur S., Trowsdale S., Barraud S.,

Semadeni-Davies A., Krajewski J.B., Mikkelsen P.S., Rivard G., Uhl M. , Dagenais D. and

Viklander M. (2014) SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – The evolution and application of

terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal, Taylor & Francis.

Gusmaroli, G.; Bizzi, S. & Lafratta, R., 2011, L’approccio della Riqualificazione Fluviale in Ambito

Urbano: Esperienze e Opportunittà. Proceedings of the IV Convegno Nazionale di Idraulica

Urbana, Venice, Italy.

Holz, J. & Tassi, R., 2007, Usando Estruturas de Drenagem Não Convencionais em Grande Áreas:

O Caso do Loteamento Monte Bello. Proceedings of the XVII Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos

Hídricos, São Paulo, Brazil, November.

Jha, A. K.; Bloch, R.; Lamond, J., 2012. Cities and Flooding. A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk

Management for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Joerin, J., Shaw, R., Takeuchi, Y., Krishnamurthy, R. (2014). The adoption of a Climate Disaster

Resilience Index in Chennai, India. Disaster, 38(3), 540-561

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Langenbach, H.; Eckart, J. & Schröder, G., 2008, Water Sensitive Urban Design – Results and

Principles. Proceedings of the 3rd SWITCH Scientific Meeting, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Loggia, G., Fontanazza, C.M., Freni, G., Notaro, V., Oliveri, E. & Puleo, V., 2012, Urban drainage

and sustainable cities: how to achieve flood resilient societies?. In: Urban Water. WIT
Accepted Article
Transactions on the Built Environment.

Magalhães, L.P.C., Magalhães, P.C., Mascarenhas, F.C.B., Miguez, M.G., Colonese, B.L., Bastos,

E.T., 2005, Sistema Hidro-Flu para Apoio a Projetos de Drenagem. In: XVI Simpósio

Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos.

Mascarenhas, F.C.B., Miguez, M.G., 2005, Mathematical Modelling of Rural and Urban Floods: a

hydraulic approach, In: Flood Risk Simulation. WIT PRESS, Gateshead.

Mendiondo, E.M., Marengo, J.A., Leyh, W., Rotava, J., Porto, J., Ueyama, J., Souza, V.C., 2013,

Towards participatory-based water resilience índex for coupling vulnerability, impacts and

adaptation on strategies at areas under land use change. In: Global Water System Project

Conference. Bonn, Germany.

Messner F., Penning-Rowsell E., Green C., et al, Guidelines for Socioeconomic Flood Damage

Evaluation. In: Floodsite Report T09-06-01, 2006.

Miguez, M.G., Mascarenhas, F.C.B., Magalhães, L.P.C., 2007, Multifunctional Landscapes for

Urban Flood Control In Developing Countries. International Journal of Sustainable

Development and Planning, vol. 2, nº2, pp. 153-166.

Miguez, M. G.; Mascarenhas, F. C. B.; Magalhães, L. P. C. & D’Alterio, C. F. V., 2009. Planning

and Design of Urban Flood Control Measures: Assessing Effects Combination. Journal of

Urban Planning and Development, 135 (3), 100-109.

Miguez, M. G., Rezende, O. M. & Veról, A. P., 2014. City Growth and Urban Drainage

Alternatives: Sustainability Challenge. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 140,

04014026.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Miguez, M. G. & Veról, A. P., 2016. A catchment scale Integrated Flood Resilience Index to support

decision making in urban flood control design. Environment and Planning B-Planning &

Design, Vol. 44, issue 5, pp 925-946.

Miguez, M.G.; Battemarco, B.P.; De Sousa, M.M.; Rezende, O.M. & Veról, A.P.; Gusmaroli, G.,
Accepted Article
2017,. Urban Flood Simulation Using MODCEL-An Alternative Quasi-2D Conceptual Model.

Water, v. 9, p. 445.

Ministério das Cidades, 2004, Manual de Drenagem Urbana Sustentável, Brasília, Brazil.

Nagem, F.R.M., 2008, Avaliação econômica dos prejuízos causados pelas cheias urbanas,

Dissertação de M.Sc., COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

National Research Council (2000), Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction

Studies. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Nones, M.; Pescaroli, G. (2016). Implications of cascading effects for the EU Floods Directive.

International Journal of River Basin Management, 14(2), 195-204.

Norman, J., Maclean, H.L., Kennedy, C.A., 2006, Comparing High and Low Residential Density:

Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Journal of Urban

Planning and Development, Vol. 132, Issue 1, pp. (10-21).

Plano de Saneamento Básico do Município de Nova Friburgo – PLAMSAB-NF: ”Situação dos

Serviços de Manejo de Águas Pluviais”, 2014, Elaborado por Fundação COPPETEC

(Laboratório de Hidrologia e Estudos de Meio Ambiente)

PROHIMET/CYTED/WMO, 2007, Documentos de divulgação. In: Jornada Internacional Sobre

Gestão de Riscos de Inundações e Deslizamentos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.

Renschler, C.S., Fraizer, A.E., Arendt, L.A., Cimellaro, G.P., Reinhorn, A.M., Bruneau, M. (2010).

A Framework for Defining and Measuring Resilience at the Community Scale: The PEOPLES

Resilience Framework. Report NIST Technical Report GCR 10-930, NIST – U.S. Department

of Commerce &National Institute of Standards and Technology.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Salgado, J.C.M., 1995, Avaliação Econômica de Projetos de Drenagem e de Controle de Inundações

em Bacias Urbanas, Dissertação de M.Sc., COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Sayers, P.; Li, Y.; Galloway, G. ; Penning-Rowsell, E. ; Shen, F. ; Wen, K.; Chen, Y. ; Le Quesne, T.

(2013). Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach. Paris, UNESCO.

Accepted Article
Serre, D.; Heinzlef, C. (2018). Assessing and mapping urban resilience to floods with respect to

cascading effects through critical infrastructure networks. International Journal of Disaster

Risk Reduction

Smith, K., 2013, Environmental Hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster. 6ª ed. Routledge.

New York.

Suárez, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Benayas, J., Tilbury, D. (2016). Towards an Urban Resilience

Index: A Case Study in 50 Spanish Cities. Sustainability 8(8), 774

The Scottish Government, 2012, Towards a Low Carbon Scotland: Sustainable Cities. Available at:

http://www.gov.scot/resource/0040/00404838.pdf

Tsakiris, G., 2014, “Flood risk assessment: concepts, modelling, applications”, Natural Hazards

Earth System Sci, Copernicus Publications.

UNISDR, 2012. Making Cities Resilient Report. United Nations, Geneva. 2012.

Veról, A.P., 2013, Requalificação Fluvial Integrada ao Manejo de Águas Urbanas para Cidades

mais Resilientes, Tese de D.Sc., COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Veról, A.P., Miguez, M.G., Britto, A.L., Gusmaroli, G., 2013, Integrating River Restoration and

Sustainable Drainage Systems for Effective Flood Risk Management in Urban Contexts. In:

European River Restoration Conference. Vienna.

Wong, T.H.F., 2006, Water Sensitive Urban Design – The Journey thus Far. Australian Journal of

Water Resources, v.10, n.3

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 World Bank, 2012, Avaliação de Perdas e Danos: Inundações e Deslizamentos na Região Serrana

do Rio de Janeiro – Janeiro de 2011. Available at: http://www.ecapra.org/DaLA-rio-de-

janeiro.

Yu, C., Hall, J.W., Cheng, X., Evans, E.P. (2013), Broad Scale Quantified Flood Risk Analysis in
Accepted Article
the Taihu Basin, China. Journal of Flood Risk Management. Volume 6, Issue 1, pages 57–68.

Zonensein J., Miguez M. G., Magalhães L. P. C., Valentin, M.G. and Mascarenhas, F. C. B. (2008)

Flood Risk Index as an Urban Management Tool. In: Proceedings of the 11th International

Conference on Urban Drainage. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Zanobetti, D.; Lorgeré, H.; Preissman, A.; Cunge, J.A., 1970, Mekong Delta Mathematical Program

Construction. Journal of the Waterways and Harbours Division, ASCE, v.96, n.WW2, pp. 181-

199.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.