Hess opinions: An interdisciplinary research agenda to explore the unintended consequences of structural flood protection

Giuliano Di Baldassarre*, Heidi Kreibich, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Jeroen Aerts, Karsten Arnbjerg-Nielsen, Marlies Barendrecht, Paul Bates, Marco Borga, Wouter Botzen, Philip Bubeck, Bruna De Marchi, Carmen Llasat, Maurizio Mazzoleni, Daniela Molinari, Elena Mondino, Johanna Märd, Olga Petrucci, Anna Scolobig, Alberto Viglione, Philip J. Ward

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

163 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as <q>levee effect</q>, <q>safe development paradox</q> or <q>safety dilemma</q>. In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of structural flood protection, and then we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)5629-5637
Number of pages9
JournalHydrology and Earth System Sciences
Volume22
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Oct 2018

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Hess opinions: An interdisciplinary research agenda to explore the unintended consequences of structural flood protection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this