Flood resilience.

Three different conceptual frameworks of resilience, including engineering, ecological and social-ecological have been presented and framed within the context of flood risk management. Engineering resilience has demonstrated its value in the design and operation of technological systems in general and in flood resilient technologies in particular. Although limited to the technical domain, it has broadened the objectives of flood resilient technologies and provided guidance in improving their effectiveness. Socio-ecological resilience is conceived as a broader system characteristic that involves the interaction between human and natural systems. It acknowledges that these systems change over time and that these interactions are of complex nature and associated with uncertainties. Building (socio-ecological) resilience in flood risk management strategies calls for an adaptive approach with short-term measures and a set of monitoring criteria for keeping track of developments that might require adaptation in the long-term (adaptation pathways) and thus built-in adaptive capacity as opposed to building engineering resilience which involves a static approach with a fixed time horizon a set of robust measures designed for specific future conditions or scenarios. The two case studies, from a developing and a developed country, indicate that the concepts of ecological and socio-ecological resilience provide guidance for building more resilient flood risk management systems resulting in an approach that embraces flood protection, prevention and preparedness. The case studies also reveal that the translation of resilience concepts into practice remains a challenge. One plausible explanation for this is our inability to arrive at a quantification of socio-ecological resilience taking into account the various attributes of the concept. This article is part of the theme issue 'Urban flood resilience'.

Managing flooding: from a problem to an opportunity.

The paper argues that the concept and practice of sustainability have proved too difficult to achieve within traditional water management, and there is a lack of political will to move towards truly sustainable water services. Instead, compromised concepts, including resistance, resilience, ecosystem services, natural capital and adaptation are defining approaches; each of which may contribute partially to sustainability. Pressures due to the changing climate, ecological degradation, human demands, urbanization and deteriorating assets are challenging sustainability and compelling changes to water management. Water is now seen less as a problem to be managed than as an opportunity, as wherever situated, water brings many opportunities to contribute to anthropogenic needs. New ideas are helping to frame the way in which water management is being approached: (i) waste is no longer waste, but a potential resource within a circular economy; (ii) the interconnectedness of infrastructure systems and services and circularity of the water cycle mean there is a need to integrate approaches; (iii) nature-based systems should be preferenced for water infrastructure. These issues and ideas are considered here, together with examples of schemes showing that managing flooding can lead to wider benefits, and potential longer-term sustainability. This article is part of the theme issue 'Urban flood resilience'.

Exploring trade-offs among the multiple benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for urban flood mitigation.

Climate change is presenting one of the main challenges to our planet. In parallel, all regions of the world are projected to urbanise further. Consequently, sustainable development challenges will be increasingly concentrated in cities. A resulting impact is the increment of expected urban flood risk in many areas around the globe. Adaptation to climate change is an opportunity to improve urban conditions through the implementation of green-blue infrastructures, which provide multiple benefits besides flood mitigation. However, this is not an easy task since urban drainage systems are complex structures. This work focuses on a method to analyse the trade-offs when different benefits are pursued in stormwater infrastructure planning. A hydrodynamic model was coupled with an evolutionary optimisation algorithm to evaluate different green-blue-grey measures combinations. This evaluation includes flood mitigation as well as the enhancement of co-benefits. We confirmed optimisation as a helpful decision-making tool to visualise trade-offs among flood management strategies. Our results show that considering co-benefits enhancement as an objective boosts the selection of green-blue infrastructure. However, flood mitigation effectiveness can be diminished when extra benefits are pursued. Finally, we proved that combining green-blue-grey measures is particularly important in urban spaces when several benefits are considered simultaneously.

Assessing the Co-Benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable urban flood risk management.

Green-blue infrastructures in urban spaces offer several co-benefits besides flood risk reduction, such as water savings, energy savings due to less cooling usage, air quality improvement and carbon sequestration. Traditionally, these co-benefits were not included in decision making processes for flood risk management. In this work we present a method to include the monetary analysis of these co-benefits into a cost-benefits analysis of flood risk mitigation measures. This approach was applied to a case study, comparing costs and benefits with and without co-benefits. Different intervention strategies were considered, using green, blue and grey measures and combinations of them. The results obtained illustrate the importance of assessing co-benefits when identifying best adaptation strategies to improve urban flood risk management. Otherwise green infrastructure is likely to appear less efficient than more conventional grey infrastructure. Moreover, a mix of green, blue and grey infrastructures is likely to result in the best adaptation strategy as these three alternatives tend to complement each other. Grey infrastructure has good performance at reducing the risk of flooding, whilst green infrastructure brings in multiple additional benefits that grey infrastructure cannot offer.