• Anna Serra-Llobet
  • G. Mathias Kondolf


Flood risk management is critically important to the well-being and economies of our societies, and with increasingly severe weather patterns now manifesting across the globe, flooding issue will gain importance. Experience reflected in the case studies presented in this book demonstrates that the threat of flooding cannot be effectively dealt with by structural methods to reduce hazard alone. An integrated approach that includes reducing vulnerability is key, and integrating multiple benefits in flood risk management projects can increase public support and provide additional funding sources for what are often expensive projects beyond the normal budgets of the responsible public agencies. Every setting is unique, whether the climate be continental or Mediterranean, whether the flood hazard comes principally from large rivers overflowing onto their floodplains or from inadequate urban drainage, and in the environmental and social resources at stake. As agencies seek to implement integrated flood risk management, they must work within institutional constraints. This has motivated a range of innovative responses, many of which are captured here in the contributions to this book.


Integrated flood risk management Structural measures Non-structural measures USA EU 


  1. Coulton, K. 2014. Using Soils Data to Map “Natural” Floodplains. Water Resources IMPACT 16: 9–12.Google Scholar
  2. EU (European Union). 2007. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks. Brussels.Google Scholar
  3. Galloway, G.E. 1994. Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21st Century, Report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee. Report to Congress. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  4. Houck, O.A. 1985. Rising Water: The Federal Flood Insurance Program in Louisiana. Tulane Law Review 60 (October): 61–164.Google Scholar
  5. ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2004. Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives. Geneva: United Nations Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Ludy, J., and G.M. Kondolf. 2012. Flood Risk Perception in Lands ‘Protected’ by 100-Year Levees. Natural Hazards 61 (2): 829–842. Scholar
  7. Merz, B., J. Hall, M. Disse, and A. Schumann. 2010. Fluvial Flood Risk Management in a Changing World. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences 10: 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. METLTM et MEDD (Ministre de l’équipement, des transports, du logement, du tourisme et de la mer, Ministre de l’écologie et du développement durable). 2004. Circulaire du 21/01/04 relative à la maîtrise de l’urbanisme et adaptation des constructions en zone inondable. BOMEDD n°15 du 15 août 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Montané, A., F. Vinet, T. Buffin-Béranger, O. Vento, and M. Masson. 2015. Cartographie hydrogéomorphologique: émergence d’utilisations règlementaires en France. Géographie Physicque et Environnement 9: 37–60.Google Scholar
  10. Plate, E.J. 2002. Flood Risk and Flood Management. Journal of Hydrology 267: 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Serra-Llobet, A., E. Conrad, and K. Schaefer. 2016. Governing for Integrated Water and Flood Risk Management: Comparing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches in Spain and California. Water 8: 445. Scholar
  12. Shadie, C.E., and B.A. Kleiss. 2012. The 2011 Mississippi River Flood and How the Mississippi River & Tributaries Project System Provides Room for the River. 2012 EWRI-ASCE World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  13. White, G.F., J.E. Goddard, J.R. Hadd, I. Hand, R.A. Hertzler, J.V. Krutilla, W.B. Langbein, M.J. Schussheim, and H.A. Steele. 1966. A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses. Report of the Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy, submitted by President L.B. Johnson to J.W. McCormack, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, 10 August 1966.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Serra-Llobet
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. Mathias Kondolf
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.University of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.University of LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations