, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 370–376 | Cite as

The Influence of Floodplain Vegetation Succession on Hydraulic Roughness: Is Ecosystem Rehabilitation in Dutch Embanked Floodplains Compatible with Flood Safety Standards?

  • Bart Makaske
  • Gilbert J. Maas
  • Claus van den Brink
  • Henk P. Wolfert


Here, we show for one of the Dutch Rhine River branches that large-scale riverine ecosystem rehabilitation and related vegetation succession may lead to up to 0.6 m higher river flood levels, because of increased hydraulic roughness. We hydraulically modeled future succession stages of embanked floodplain vegetation, following from present ecosystem rehabilitation plans for the 124-km-long river IJssel, and found flood levels exceeding the safety levels (related to dike heights). Our models take into account river engineering measures that are presently carried out, aimed at enhancing the river discharge capacity in order to meet required safety standards. Our study shows that there is a pressing need for integrated hydraulic-ecological evaluation of river engineering measures and ecosystem rehabilitation plans in the Rhine embanked floodplains. An important conclusion also is that hydraulic evaluation of planned vegetation goals only is inadequate, because flow resistance of preceding succession stages may be higher.


Ecosystem rehabilitation Flood safety Hydraulic roughness River floodplains River management Vegetation succession 



This work was funded by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL).


  1. Anonymous. 2009. User’s guide WAQUA, version 10.54. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, The Netherlands. Accessed 2 July 2010.
  2. Baptist, M.J., W.E. Penning, H. Duel, A.J.M. Smits, G.W. Geerling, G.E.M. van der Lee, and J.S.L. van Alphen. 2004. Assessment of the effects of cyclic floodplain rejuvenation on flood levels and biodiversity along the Rhine River. River Research and Applications 20: 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cowan, W.L. 1956. Estimating hydraulic roughness coefficients. Agricultural Engineering 37: 473–475.Google Scholar
  4. Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management. 2006. Tentative river management review standard for interventions in the Rhine branches, version 10 April 2006. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Rijkswaterstaat DON (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  5. European Commission. 2002. Commission working document on Natura 2000. Accessed 2 July 2010.
  6. European Commission. 2007. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Consolidated version 1.1.2007. Accessed 2 July 2010.
  7. European Commission. 2010. Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version). Accessed 2 July 2010.
  8. Fathi-Maghadam, M., and N. Kouwen. 1997. Nonrigid, nonsubmerged, vegetative roughness on floodplains. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 123: 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klaassen, G.J., and J.J. van der Zwaard. 1974. Roughness coefficients of vegetated flood plains. Journal of Hydraulic Research 12: 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klijn, F., M. van Buren, and S.A.M. van Rooij. 2004. Flood-risk management strategies for an uncertain future: Living with Rhine River floods in The Netherlands? AMBIO 33: 141–147.Google Scholar
  11. LNV. 2000. Nature for People, People for Nature; Policy Document for Nature, Forest and Landscape in the 21st Century. The Hague: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, 87 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Pfister, L., J. Kwadijk, A. Musy, A. Bronstert, and L. Hoffmann. 2004. Climate change, land use change and runoff prediction in the Rhine-Meuse basins. River Research and Applications 20: 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Project Organisation Room for the River. 2007. Spatial planning key decisionRoom for the River approved decision 19 December 2006. The Hague: Project Organisation Room for the River, 42 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Stone, B.M., and H.T. Shen. 2002. Hydraulic resistance of flow in channels with cylindrical roughness. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 128: 500–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Velzen, E.H., P. Jesse, P. Cornelissen, and H. Coops. 2003a. Flow resistance in embanked floodplains, part 1, handbook version 1–2003. RIZA, report 2003.028, Arnhem, The Netherlands, 134 pp (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  16. Van Velzen, E.H., P. Jesse, P. Cornelissen, and H. Coops. 2003b. Flow resistance in embanked floodplains, part 2, background document version 1–2003. RIZA, report 2003.029, Arnhem, The Netherlands, 124 pp (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  17. Vollebregt, E.A.H., M.R.T. Roest, and J.W.M. Lander. 2003. Large scale computing at Rijkswaterstaat. Parallel Computing 29: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wolfert, H.P. 2001. Geomorphological change and river rehabilitation. Alterra, Scientific Contributions 6, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 200 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Wu, F.-C., H.W. Shen, and Y.-J. Chou. 1999. Variation of roughness coefficients for unsubmerged and submerged vegetation. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 125: 934–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart Makaske
    • 1
  • Gilbert J. Maas
    • 1
  • Claus van den Brink
    • 2
  • Henk P. Wolfert
    • 1
  1. 1.Alterra, Wageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Duurzame RivierkundeOlstThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations