Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 78)


Abstract- Risk management as a tool for decision making has found more and more acceptance among scientists, and even for planners of flood protection systems. However, a shortcoming of this approach is that at present it only considers risk cost as management tool. It is at present the basis for most risk based approaches, which start with hazard maps, which can be prepared, in conjunction with Digital Terrain Models (DGMs) and geographical information system, if the necessary basic hydrological and topographical data are available. In fact, in many areas and in many countries it has become good practice to develop maps based on flood areas for different exceedance probabilities, with floodzoning as a preferred information for preparing the public for floods.


Extreme Event Flood Risk Flood Plain Vulnerability Index Flash Flood 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Archetti, R., and A. Lamberti (2003) Assessment of risk due to debris flow events. Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 4, pp. 115–125, Am. Soc, Civ. Engr., Reston, Va, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Betamio de Almeida, A. and T. Viseu (1997): Dams and safety management at downstream valleys. Balkeema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkland, T.A., R.J. Burby, D. Conrad, H. Cortner, and W.K. Michener: (2003): River ecology and flood hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 4, pp. 46–54,Am. Soc, Civ. Engr., Reston, Va, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaikie, P.T., T. Cannon, I. Davis and B. Wisner (1994): At risk: Natural Hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohle, H.G., T.E. Downing, and J.M. Watts (1994): Climate change and social vulnerability. Towards a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change Vol. 4, pp. 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronstert, A., A. Ghazi, J. Hljadny, Z.W. Kundzevicz, and L. Menzel, (1999): Proceedings of the European Expert Meeting on the Oder Flood, May 18, Potsdam, Germany. Published by the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  7. Crouch, E.A.C. and R. Wilson (1982): Risk Benefit Analysis, Ballinger Publisher, Boston, Mass. USAGoogle Scholar
  8. DKKV, (2003): Hochwasservorsorge in Deutschland: Lernen aus der Katastrophe im Elbegebiet—lessons learned. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Komitees für Katastrophenvorsorge (DKKV) No. 29, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeze, R.A., J.Massmann, L.Smith, T.Sperling, and B.James, (1990): Hydrogeological decision analysis: 1. A. framework, Groundwater, Vol. 28, pp. 738–766Google Scholar
  10. Grünewald, U. et al. (2004): Flood risk reduction in Germany: lessons learned. German Committee for Disaster Reduction (DKKV), German DKKV Publication No. 29e, BonnGoogle Scholar
  11. Hofer, T. and B. Messerli, (1997): Floods in Bangladesh.-Institut für Geographie, Universität Bern, Bericht f. Schweizerische Behörde für Entwicklung und KooperationGoogle Scholar
  12. ISDR (2002): United Nations Interagency Secretariat for the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. (preliminary version), United Nations, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Jordaan, J., Plate, E.J., Prins, E., and Veltrop, J. (1993): Water in Our Common Future: A research agenda for sustainable development of water resources. Paris: UNESCO 1993Google Scholar
  14. Kowalczak, P. (1999): Flood 1997—Infrastructure and Urban Context. In: A. Bronstert et al.(eds.) Proceedings of the European Expert Meeting on the Oder Flood, May 18, Potsdam, Germany. published by the European Commission, pp. 99–104Google Scholar
  15. Loucks, D.P. et al. (1998): Task Committee on Sustainability criteria, American Society if Civil Engineers, and Working Group UNESCO/IHPIV Project M-4.3 Sustainability criteria for water resources systems. ASCE, Reston, VA. USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Merz, B. & M. Gocht (2003): Karten für die Hochwasservorsorge und das Risikomangement auf der lokalen Skale. (Mapping for flood defence and risk management on the local scale). Hydrologie und Wasserbewirtschaftung (Hydrology and Water Resources Management—Germany) Vol. 47, pp. 186–194Google Scholar
  17. Parker, G. (1999): Progress in modelling of alluvial fans, Journal of Hydraulic Research Vol. 37, pp. 805–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Plate, E.J. (1992): Statistik und angewandte Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre für Bauingenieurere, Verlag W.Ernst und Sohn, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  19. Plate, E.J. (2002): Flood risk and flood management. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 276,pp. 2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. UNESCO, (2003): Water for people—water for life: the United Nations World Water Development Report, UNESCO and Berghahn Books, publisherGoogle Scholar
  21. UNDP, (2000): United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Human Development Report 2000, Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Vrijling, J.K., W. van Hengel, and R.J. Houben (1995): A framework for risk evaluation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 43 pp. 245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, Z.-Y., and E.J. Plate, (2002): Recent flood disasters in China. Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers, Water and Maritime Engineering, Vol. 154, pp. 177–188Google Scholar
  24. WCED, (1987): World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. World Bank, (2000): World development indicators. World Bank, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmermann, H. and L. Gutsche (1993): Multi-criteria Analyse: Einführung in die Theorie der Entscheidungen unter Mehrfachzielsetzungen, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
  1. 1.Professor, Karlsruhe UniversityKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations