Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized

UR B AN
R I SK

INTERVENTIONS
H A N D B OO K
ASSESSING RISK AND IDENTIFYING
F L OOD
© 2023 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org

Some rights reserved

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed
in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the
governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of
the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in
the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or
conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this
work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or
the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges
and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.

Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank
encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in
whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this
work is given.

Attribution Please cite the work as follows: “Ferguson, Scott, Mathijs van Ledden, Steven
Rubinyi, Ana Campos, and Tess Doeffinger. 2023. Urban Flood Risk Handbook:
Assessing Risk and Identifying Interventions. Washington, DC: World Bank.”

Translation If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along
with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should
not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be
liable for any content or error in this translation.

Adaptation If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along
with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank.
Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the
author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank.

Third-party content The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content
contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the
use of any third-party-owned individual component or part contained in the work
will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting
from such infringements rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component
of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed
for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of
components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images.

All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications,
The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
UR B AN F L OO D
R I SK
H A N D B OO K
ASSESSING RISK AND
IDENTIFYING INTERVENTIONS

Scott Ferguson | Mathijs van Ledden | Steven Rubinyi | Ana Campos |

Tess Doeffinger
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL iii

Table of contents
Foreword...................................................................................................................ix

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................... x

Key Takeaways..........................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1: Defining Urban Flood Risk and Scope......................................................xi

Chapters 2 and 3: Flood Hazard Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment............. xii

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions................................................ xii

Chapter 5: Project Management Issues and Closeout............................................. xiii

Abbreviations..........................................................................................................xiv

Overview..................................................................................................................xv

Background and Objectives.........................................................................................xv

Risk Management Project Cycle and Stages............................................................. xvi

Organization of the Handbook................................................................................... xix

References.................................................................................................................... xxi

Endnotes....................................................................................................................... xxi

Chapter 1: Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope.........................................1

1.1 Flood Risks Defined.................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Flood Risk Assessment Framework........................................................................ 4

1.3 Aims of the Assessment............................................................................................7

1.4 Types of Flood Hazards........................................................................................... 9

1.5 Types of Consequences..........................................................................................11

1.6 Types of Interventions............................................................................................. 13

1.7 Approaches—from Deterministic to Probabilistic ...............................................15

1.8 Existing Data and Models....................................................................................... 17

1.9 Institutional Setting..................................................................................................19

URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL iv

References..................................................................................................................... 21

Endnotes....................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 2: Flood Hazard Assessment..................................................................... 23

2.1 Initial Considerations.............................................................................................. 24

2.2 Hydrological Analysis............................................................................................ 27

2.3 Hydraulic Analysis..................................................................................................38

2.4 Terrain and Geometry Data.................................................................................. 53

2.5 Calibration and Validation.....................................................................................64

2.6 Importance of Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................65

2.7 Flood Hazard Simulation – Scenarios and Mapping......................................... 67

2.8 Flood Hazard Probabilistic Assessment..............................................................69

References.................................................................................................................... 72

Endnotes....................................................................................................................... 74

Chapter 3: Flood Risk Assessment.......................................................................... 75

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 76

3.2 Consequences........................................................................................................81

3.3 Assessment Selection and Data Requirements...................................................83

3.4 Exposure Data.......................................................................................................85

3.5 Vulnerability ......................................................................................................... 90

3.6 Flood Risk Simulation Scenarios..........................................................................99

3.7 Risk Calibration and Verification......................................................................... 102

References.................................................................................................................. 106

Endnotes..................................................................................................................... 108
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL v

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions.......................................... 109

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 110

4.2 Identification of Interventions...............................................................................112

4.3 Selection of Interventions ....................................................................................118

4.4 Modeling Potential Interventions........................................................................123

4.5 Costs and Benefits of Interventions....................................................................128

4.6 Environmental and Social Impacts.....................................................................132

References...................................................................................................................136

Endnotes......................................................................................................................138

Chapter 5: Project Management Issues and Closeout..........................................139

5.1 Bid Preparation and Selection . .......................................................................... 140

5.2 Project Execution Phase..................................................................................... 144

5.3 Project Closure Phase......................................................................................... 148

Glossary................................................................................................................ 150

References...................................................................................................................153
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure O.1 The Flood Risk Management Project Cycle..........................................xvii

Figure O.2 Typical Project Development Stages.................................................. xviii

Figure O.3 Five Phases of a Level 2 Urban Flood Risk Assessment.........................xx

Figure 1.1 Factors of Disaster Risk............................................................................. 2

Figure 1.2 Project Framework for a Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment......................... 6

Figure 1.3 Four Common Types of Floods and Their Causes................................. 10

Figure 1.4 Consequences of Flooding, by Type.......................................................12

Figure 1.5 Types of Structural Interventions for Urban Flood .

Risk Management . ..................................................................................................14

Figure 2.1 Trade-Offs in Flood Hazard Modeling, by Analysis Level ...................... 26

Figure 2.2 Typical Statistical Analysis Approach.................................................... 33

Figure 2.3 Decision Tree to Select Hydraulic Modeling Type for Flood .
Hazard Assessment ................................................................................................ 39

Figure 2.4 Model of the St. Venant Equations in Practice for .

1D Hydraulic Modeling ........................................................................................... 42

Figure 2.5 Example of HEC-RAS 1D Flood Model.................................................. 43

Figure 2.6 Typical 2D Flood Modeling ...................................................................44

Figure 2.7 Comparison of 1D and 2D Models in Capturing Flow Area of a .

20-Meter-Wide Channel at 5-Meter Resolution . ..................................................46

Figure 2.8 Comparison of 1D and 2D Models in Capturing Flow Area of a .

20-Meter-Wide Channel at 30-Meter Resolution.................................................. 47

Figure 2.9 Schematization of a Typical Linked 1D-2D Hydraulic Model.................50

Figure 2.10 Difference between Selected DTMs for Mrauk-U, Myanmar, 2018......54

Figure 3.1 Components of Flood Risk...................................................................... 78

Figure 3.2 Critical Infrastructure Sectors................................................................88

Figure 3.3 Sample Depth-Damage Curve for Residential Buildings .......................91

URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL vii

Figure 3.4 Different Models for Loss of Life from Flooding, by Level of .
Detail and Modeling Principles............................................................................... 96

Figure 3.5 Example of Mortality Function as Function of Water Depth, .

Rise Rate, and Flow Velocity................................................................................... 97

Figure 3.6 Mortality Rates from Eight Recent Floods in Selected Countries, .
2005-21...................................................................................................................98

Figure 3.7 Flood Events of Different Scales of Impacts .......................................100

Figure 4.1 Structural versus Nonstructural Interventions .......................................113

Figure 4.2 Catchment-Scale Interventions ........................................................... 116

Figure 4.3 Urban-Scale Interventions ....................................................................117

Figure 4.4 Schematic Representation of Risk Reduction from a Structural Flood

Risk Intervention.....................................................................................................131

LIST OF CASE STUDIES

Box 2.1 The Role of Different Flood Hazards in a Level 2 Flood Risk .
Assessment in Greater Monrovia, Liberia............................................................... 52

Box 2.2 Selection of a Flood Hazard Modeling Approach for .

Greater Paramaribo, Suriname............................................................................... 62

Box 3.1 Probabilistic Flood Risk Assessment for Zanzibar City and .
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.........................................................................................80

Box 3.2 Strong Stakeholder Engagement in Indonesia..........................................89

Box 4.1 Addressing the Climate Adaptation Deficit in Dhaka, Bangladesh . .........122

Box 4.2 Testing the Robustness of Different Interventions in N’Djili River,

Democratic Republic of Congo.............................................................................. 127
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Flood Model Boundary Conditions Affecting Selected Cities.................. 28

Table 2.2 1D versus 2D Modeling Approaches ......................................................48

Table 2.3 Potential DTM Data Sources for Flood Modeling.................................... 56

Table 3.1 Examples of Flood Damage, by Type ......................................................81

Table 3.2 Replacement or Rebuilding Costs in Kampala, Uganda, 2017 .............. 93

Table 4.1 Indicative Values for Selection of Return Periods of .

Structural Interventions . ...................................................................................... 120
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL ix

FOREWORD
range of possibilities in terms of resources required
and detail produced, all involve developing a
robust understanding of a city’s current and future
flood risk scenarios – where, why, and how.
A good urban flood risk profile is the basis for
Floods in urban areas are an important reminder the identification of different types of measures
of the vulnerability of our cities and the complex for flood risk protection, the formulation of policy
challenges they face in managing their growth recommendations and territorial plans, and the
and development. As urbanization continues to development of risk reduction strategies and
accelerate around the world, the impact of floods solutions that are needed for a particular city.
on densely populated areas is becoming more
pronounced. Increasing pressure on the availability This Urban Flood Risk Handbook: Assessing Risk
of urban land and space pushes urban development and Identifying Interventions is a roadmap for
into low-lying river and coastal areas, often ignoring conducting an urban flood risk assessment in any
planning restrictions, disrupting natural processes, city in the world. It includes practical guidance for
and placing more vulnerable people at greater risk. a flood risk assessment project, covering the key
Global climate change exacerbates this challenge hazard and risk modeling stages as well as the
through increased precipitation, sea level rise, and evaluation of different flood-mitigating infrastructure
other effects. Torrential rains, overwhelmed drainage intervention options and management of the
systems, and inadequate planning systems have project. The Handbook has been developed based
left cities confronting the consequences of more on lessons learned from implementing urban flood
severe, frequent, destructive, and far-reaching risk assessments around the world in a diversity
inundations, affecting communities, infrastructure, of contexts. It is intended for a wide variety of
and the environment. Making informed judgments practitioners: project managers, city officials, and
about how to manage these risks is critical for a anyone else interested in conducting a strategic
sustainable urban future. study of a city’s flood risk and developing potential
solutions for it. We expect this Handbook to
To protect the growing concentrations of people contribute to the understanding of urban flood risk,
and their assets in flood-prone urban areas, cities make this specialized knowledge more accessible to
must make improvements in both flood mitigation a wider public, and support the process of building
and the maintenance and restoration of existing, cities that are not only capable of withstanding
aging, protective urban infrastructure. Determining floods but also provide safe, inclusive, and
the type of flood protection investments that are sustainable environments for all their residents.
needed is a critical exercise that can influence the
extent to which a city withstands and manages
destructive floodwaters for years to come. To adopt
a proactive and holistic approach to mitigate and
adapt to urban flooding, cities must first conduct Bernice Van Bronkhorst
Bernice Van Bronkhorst
a flood risk assessment. That means evaluating Global Director
Global Director
Urban,
the likelihood and extent of flooding, Disaster
as well as Risk Management, Resilience
Urban, Disaster and LandResilience,
Risk Management, Global Practice
and
the potential consequences and impacts of such World Bank
Land Global Practice
an event. Though such assessments offer a wide World Bank
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Urban Flood Risk Handbook: Assessing Risks and Identifying Interventions
was developed by the World Bank’s City Resilience Program (CRP), within the
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), under the leadership
of Bernice von Bronkhorst, Global Director for Urban, Disaster Risk Management,
Resilience, and Land, and GFDRR Practice Manager Niels Holm-Nielsen.

The coordination of this Handbook was provided by Steven Rubinyi and Ana
Campos Garcia. The preparation of the Handbook was led by Scott Ferguson and
Mathijs van Ledden. Tess Doeffinger was the technical editor.

The Handbook benefited greatly from World Bank colleagues, who provided
valuable feedback in reviewing this Handbook—Brenden Jongman, Swarna Kazi,
Dzung Huy Nguyen, Defne Osmanoglou, and Joop Stoutjesdijk—as well as from
contributions from the following organizations: Deltares, Jeremy Benn Associates,
and Royal HaskoningDHV.

For their help in developing the Handbook, we would like to thank Ross Eisenberg,
Marc Forni, and Cristiano Giovando. For contributing to the conceptualization of
the Handbook, we would like to thank Edward Anderson, Isabel Cantada, Lorenzo
Carrera, Laurent Corroyer, Vivien Deparday, Eric Dickson, Stuart Fraser, Suranga
Kahandawa, Yohannes Kesete, Lukas Loeschner, Lizardo Marulanda, Emma Phillips,
Carolina Rogelis, Giovanni Prieto, Artessa Saldivar-Sali, Alanna Simpson, Diana
Rubiano Vargas, Jian Vun, and Carmen Zena.

We would also like to thank Edward Anderson, Laurent Corroyer, Christian Vang
Eghoff, Armando Guzman, Swarna Kazi, Yohannes Kesete, Linus Pott, Robert
Reid, Artessa Saldivar-Sali, Jian Vun, and Jolanta Kryspin-Watson for providing
suggestions and information on the technical case studies.

Mary Anderson edited the Handbook, and Estudio Relativo designed it.

The Handbook was made possible through funding from the Swiss State
Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance, and
the City Resilience Program.
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Key Takeaways xi

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The Urban Flood Risk Handbook offers a practical guide on how to conduct a
broad-scale urban flood risk assessment and options appraisal. It is designed for
project managers, practitioners, stakeholders, or anyone interested in carrying
out a strategic study of urban flooding and potential mitigation solutions. The key
takeaways from the handbook are described below, by chapter.

CHA P TER
A clear understanding of the study’s aim and scope from the start is

1
essential and must include early involvement and input from all relevant
stakeholders. This includes clearly defining the study’s intended audience,
the issue or issues it will address, and its geographical extent, recognizing
the importance of choosing system boundaries (for example, including the
relevant water systems when defining the study area).

Conscious and informed consideration must be given to the level of effort

DEFINING (time and cost) versus the overall accuracy and resolution required of
URBAN FLOOD the study, recognizing the important trade-off between the two but also
RISK AND SCOPE remembering the law of diminishing returns: it is easy to get drawn into
seeking perfection when simply a good job will suffice. A balance often is
required when prioritizing what to include or leave out during the modeling
process and assessment of options as well as what is required to support
the objectives.

Stakeholder engagement should be central to the flood risk assessment

and options appraisal, both to validate the development process and
results and to help ensure uptake and support of the presented options
and study outcomes. This engagement includes promoting the importance
of integrated flood risk management solutions and ensuring that urban
planning and development decisions incorporate flood risk analysis—which
will not only reduce the negative impacts of flooding but also improve the
living environment through as many societal and environmental co-benefits
as practical.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Key Takeaways xii

CHA P TERS
Floods in urban areas can be caused by a variety of mechanisms including

2 3
high river discharges, local rainfall, extreme tides, cyclone-induced storm
and surges, and severe wave overtopping. These potential drivers of flooding
can occur independently, but several mechanisms can also be strongly
dependent. Understanding the drivers of flooding and the possibility of
joint occurrence in an urban area is essential in hazard modeling and risk
assessment studies.

FLOOD HAZARD The accuracy of the hazard and risk assessment depends heavily on the
ASSESSMENT quality of underlying data. Data can be expensive and time-consuming to
AND FLOOD RISK collect or purchase and must be considered as early as possible. Local data
ASSESSMENT are always preferable but often hard to obtain in data-scarce environments.
Freely available global data can be used instead with care.

Sensible and robust hazard and risk results should be ensured through
commonsense checks at key stages. These checks can be carried out by
sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable personnel, particularly when
adequate calibration or validation is not possible in data-poor environments,
using global data if necessary to validate outputs. Remaining uncertainties
in the hazard and risk assessment must be considered when evaluating
interventions and clearly disclosed when communicating findings.

CHA P TER
An open-minded and structured approach to infrastructure interventions

4
should be adopted—considering all potential interventions across the
entire gray-green-blue spectrum as well as nonstructural options. The direct
benefits (for example, reduced damage and fewer affected people) as well
as the co-benefits of solutions should be evaluated and included.

Hazard and risk modeling shall be set up with this wide range of options
and with their benefits in mind so that these can be tested and evaluated.
EVALUATION OF
Interventions should be evaluated against the background of multiple future
INFRASTRUCTURE climate change and socioeconomic scenarios. In this way, robust solutions
INTERVENTIONS can be prioritized that can or will be effective in a large range of future
situations. This often requires many simulations and can therefore be time-
intensive—an important consideration during the planning and setup of the
hazard and risk modeling process.

Finally, full attention should be given to the potential interaction of

interventions with each other, considering the possibility of negative impacts
as well as cumulative benefits. Also, the environmental and social impacts
of solutions should be considered early in the decision-making process to
avoid potential pitfalls later. Potential resettlement and land acquisition are
critical aspects to identify early on in this process.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Key Takeaways xiii

CHA P TER
The development of well-structured and informative terms of reference

5
(ToR), informed by local context, is an essential ingredient for a
high-quality urban flood risk assessment. It is worth remembering that
the ToRs should focus on output as much as possible and avoid specifying
how to carry out every aspect of the assessment. This handbook provides
some important lessons for developing a ToR document. A varied team is
required to evaluate proposals because of the multidisciplinary nature of
these assessments.

PROJECT
A clear stakeholder management plan is an important tool in managing any
MANAGEMENT project—particularly where multiple stakeholders may be involved—and
ISSUES AND the technical aspects of the work may be multidisciplinary, as is common
CLOSEOUT with urban flood hazard studies and risk assessments. It is worth making this
plan an early delivery from the consultants, and it should be considered a
“live” document for the duration of the project, updated as necessary as the
project progresses. Regular and frequent contact with the consultants and
stakeholders throughout project execution is essential.

A streamlined and thorough internal review process must be set out by the
consultant and agreed upon by the client, with a clearly defined quality
control and assurance process. This should include a formal client or
stakeholder review and response process, which may involve more than one
iteration, with a realistic time frame for each work stage or deliverable.

Finally, a structured and thorough project closeout phase is essential

to ensure the effective handover of all project deliverables; that the
investments in data, models, and analysis are not lost; and that these
deliverables are properly handed over. A properly handled closeout phase
allows further development or reuse of the materials and promotes capacity
building and continued technical development within local agencies or
academia. To facilitate this, it is worth specifying the use of free and widely
available software with no long-term or costly licensing requirements or
implementing constraints for all technical aspects of the assessments.

The practical guidance provided in this handbook will further help improve urban
flood risk assessments. The ultimate goal will always be to make the rapidly growing
cities of the developing world safer and healthier places for people to live.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Overview xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

EAD expected annual damage O&M operation and maintenance

EM-DAT Emergency Events Database OSM OpenStreetMap

DTM digital terrain model PDNA post disaster needs assessment

GDP gross domestic product SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

GIS geographic information system ToR terms of reference

JRC Joint Research Centre 3D three-dimensional

(European Commission)
2D two-dimensional
LIDAR light detection and ranging
1D one-dimensional
MERIT Multi-Error-Removed Improved-Terrain
0D zero-dimensional
MSL mean sea level

NBS nature-based solutions

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Overview xv

OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cities around the world are following a common trend of increasing concentration
of population and economic activities, often with little planning or forethought
regarding the consequences of urbanization. It is expected that 70 percent of the
global population will live in urban areas by 2050.1 These densely built-up areas are
increasingly vulnerable to flood disasters from a combination of increased runoff
and increasing exposure of population, assets, and economic activities, with poor
people disproportionally affected by these and other natural disasters (Hallegatte
et al. 2020). Climate change and socioeconomic development are likely to
exacerbate the problem as floods become more frequent and more severe.

By 2030, urban exposure to flooding will more than double (Güneralp, Güeralp,
and Liu 2015). Yearly flood losses in 136 major cities around the world reached an
estimated US$6 billion in 2005, but by 2050 yearly projected losses are estimated
to increase to US$52 billion accounting only for socioeconomic changes and not
factoring in subsidence or climate change (Hallegatte et al. 2013). National and
municipal government agencies must therefore identify adaptation strategies and
adopt sustainable, risk-informed investments to better manage urban flood risks
if they are to minimize the misery and disruption that flooding brings, help reduce
poverty, and achieve sustainable economic growth.

This handbook provides practical guidance on the setup and implementation

of risk-based urban flood assessments to be carried out in collaboration with
local stakeholders. The assessment methodologies have been addressed both
in academic texts (Ashley et al. 2007; Zevenbergen et al. 2010) and by global
organizations (Jha, Bloch, and Lamond 2012). This handbook offers complementary
and contemporary knowledge on urban flood assessments, with a target audience
of project managers, stakeholders, and anyone interested in conducting such
assessments. Recent experiences and an in-depth review of recent urban flood risk
assessments have been key ingredients in the creation of this handbook.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Overview xvi

RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT CYCLE

AND STAGES

Urban flood risk assessments are often carried out during project identification
and preparation to define the appropriate location, type, and size of flood
management interventions and to support investment decisions by the potential
financier or beneficiary (figure O.1). To converge on appropriate interventions, these
assessments have three main elements: the flood hazard assessment, the flood risk
assessment, and the evaluation of interventions. Myriad technical and nontechnical
factors make these assessments a challenging puzzle, such as

Natural variability and different High density and rapid changes Implementation issues,
flood mechanisms, of population and assets, such as choosing between
compounded by limited and often which cause uncertainties about numerous possible interventions,
inaccurate data for calibration and socioeconomic change and urban low planning and enforcement
validation of hazard models as footprint expansion in the risk capacities, environmental and social
well as uncertainties about climate assessment and lack of validation impacts such as potential relocation,
change in the hazard assessment; information about direct and limited funding, and maintenance of
indirect damages as well as impacts the intervention.
to population during floods; and

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Overview xvii

Figure O.1 The Flood Risk Management Project Cycle

UNDERSTAND
the urban setting and the flood challenge through
analytical work and stakeholder consultations

IDENTIFY
the flood hazard and the risk to urban communities
with surveys, data analysis, modeling
CONTINUOUSLY
CONSULT,

COMMUNICATE, EVALUATE
potential options and their trade-offs to reduce the
risk and boost the urban environment
AND LEARN
with the stakeholders to decide on
next steps and take action where and
IMPLEMENT
when necessary
and maintain economically and financially feasible
and socially supported options in the urban context

MONITOR
regularly the flood risk and the performance
of the risk mitigation measures in the changing
urban setting

Different project stages require different levels of understanding, assessment,

and decision-making (figure O.2) and therefore different levels of resolution and
acceptable uncertainty within the data. This handbook distinguishes three levels of
flood risk assessment—(1) preliminary, (2) strategic, and (3) detailed—recognizing
that, in reality, many variants exist between the levels. At each level, the risk
assessment is part of the project definition or design process but with a different
level of detail tailored to the purpose of that specific project stage. The results may
well be tailored to match the specific needs of the assessment. However, they tend
to be similar in format regardless of the level of assessment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Overview xviii

Figure O.2 Typical Project Development Stages

INITIAL DISCUSSIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS

1
LEVEL

Initiaton of dialogue, identification of the scale of hazard or risk,

definition of the problem and scope of risk assessment
PRELIMINARY,
typically national or city scale,
for “hot spot” mapping and
screening
PROJECT CONCEPT AND PREPARATION
Strategic assessment allowing prefeasibility, outline of cost-
benefit analysis, initial scoping of investments​

2
LEVEL

STRATEGIC, PROJECT PLANNING, APPRAISAL, AND DESIGN

typically city (regional
Feasibility, engineering, and design studies, economic analysis,
or small island state)
environmental and social impact assessment​
scale analysis

IMPLEMENTATION
Procurement, contract negotiation, land acquisition,

3
LEVEL

environmental licensing and permits, construction​

DETAILED
high-resolution analysis
focusing on basin, sub-basin,
or individual channel scale COMMISSIONING AND OPERATION
Construction and project monitoring and supervision, O&M of
structures, postconstruction review​

Source: Adapted from Shah, Rahman, and Chowdhury 2017.

Note: O&M = operation and maintenance.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Overview xix

ORGANIZATION OF THE HANDBOOK

The focus of this handbook is mainly on Level 2 assessments for urban

environments. In such an assessment, the general urban areas at risk and the type
of flood hazard are reasonably well understood. However, the quantification of the
hazard and risk and the screening and prioritization of potential options to reduce
risk must be assessed to arrive at a potential package of interventions for further
discussion with the beneficiaries. As mentioned previously, these assessments
have three main elements: the flood hazard assessment, the flood risk assessment,
and the evaluation of interventions. In addition, the overall project management of
such an assessment typically begins by setting the project scope and is completed
during the closeout phase of the project. Thus, this handbook focuses on five
phases of a Level 2 assessment (figure O.3). The handbook describes in detail how
to conduct such an assessment in the following five chapters:

CH A P TER CHAP T E R C H A PTE R C H A PTER C H A PTE R

1 2 3 4 5

Defining Flood Hazard Flood Risk Evaluation of Project

Urban Flood Assessment Assessment Interventions Management
Risk and Issues and
Project Scope Closeout

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Overview xx

Figure O.3 Five Phases of a Level 2 Urban Flood Risk Assessment

1 2 3 4 5

PROJECT HAZARD RISK INTERVENTIONS CLOSEOUT

SCOPING MODELING MODELING

■ Preliminary ■ Hydrological and ■ Risk model ■ Prioritized set of ■ Proiect

stakeholder hydraulic model ■ Existing and future interventions documentation
engagement ■ Existing and future flood risk maps ■ Environmental and ■ Data handover
■ Initial data review flood hazard maps social impacts and ■ Lessons learned
■ Definition of co-benefits
main objectives ■ Cost benefit for
and outputs interventions

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Overview xxi

REFERENCES

Ashley, R., S. Garvin, E. Pasche, A. Vassilopoulos, and C. Zevenbergen, eds. 2007. Advances in
Urban Flood Management. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Güneralp, B., I. Güneralp, and Y. Liu. 2015. “Changing Global Patterns of Urban Exposure
to Flood and Drought Hazards.” Global Environmental Change 31: 217–25. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2015.01.002.

Hallegatte, S., C. Green, R. J. Nicholls, and J. Corfee-Morlot. 2013. “Future Flood Losses in
Major Coastal Cities.” Nature Climate Change 3 (9): 802–06. doi:10.1038/nclimate1979.

Hallegatte, S., A. Vogt-Schilb, J. Rozenberg, M. Bangalore, and C. Beaudet. 2020.

“From Poverty to Disaster and Back: A Review of the Literature.” Economics of Disasters and
Climate Change 4 (5): 223 -47. doi:10.1007/s41885-020-00060-5.

Jha, A. K., R. Bloch, and J. Lamond. 2012. Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban
Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Shah, M. A. R., A. Rahman, and S. H. Chowdhury. 2017. “Sustainability Assessment of Flood

Mitigation Projects: An Innovative Decision Support Framework.” International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction (23): 53–61. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.006.

Zevenbergen, C., A. Cashman, N. Evelpidou, E. Pasche, S. Garvin, and R. Ashley. 2010.

Urban Flood Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

ENDNOTES

1 Urban population data are from the World Urbanization Prospects database of the
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (accessed January 2022),
https://population.un.org/wup/.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 1

CHAPTER

DEFINING URBAN
FLOOD RISK AND
PROJECT SCOPE

1 2 3 4 5

PROJECT SCOPING HAZARD MODELING RISK MODELING INTERVENTIONS CLOSEOUT

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 2

1.1
FLOOD RISKS DEFINED

Urban flood risk is “the combination of the probability of a flood event and of
the potential adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural
heritage and economic activity associated with a flood event” in an urban
environment (EU 2007, chapter 1, article 2). This can be difficult to quantify,
and many approaches to characterizing flood risk attempt to include many of
the complex factors involved. In simple terms, however, urban flood risk can be
considered as a function of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability—each of which is
further described below. Figure 1.1 illustrates the interaction between these factors,
particularly how a change in one or more of them will alter the resulting risk.

Figure 1.1 Factors of Disaster Risk

HAZARDS

9.99

RISK
9.99

EXPOSURE VULNERABILITY

→ FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 3

Hazards Flood hazards in an urban environment can be caused by inundation from a

wide range of sources, including the obvious ones such as coastal (including
tidal, storm surge, or wave overtopping); fluvial (floodwater from a watercourse);
and pluvial (floodwater that cannot or hasn’t yet been able to get into a
watercourse). Floods may also, in some circumstances, result from the failure
or breach of man-made structures (such as dams or embankments) or natural
defenses (for example, coastal ridge breached by shoreline erosion). Less obvious
sources may include groundwater or snowmelt. Most often, however, there will
be a combination of sources and mechanisms, which can often be analyzed
independently from each other, but often must be considered jointly. Long-
term trends—such as sea level rise, the possible change in rainfall intensity
both upstream and locally, or future changes in cyclone characteristics—may
exacerbate the frequency and magnitude of these hazards.

These hazardous events, although sometimes considered deterministic events,

have a certain probability of occurrence now and in the future, in terms of both
intensity and spatial distribution. Therefore, strictly speaking, hazards should be
expressed or quantified in probabilistic terms (that is, with a measure of intensity
and a likelihood of occurrence). True deterministic events are those events that
have actually happened, such that for a given set of input conditions, there is a
single (known) outcome—that is, the event that occurred.

Exposure An urban area’s exposure encompasses the entire inventory of elements and
activities in the area that can be affected by the hazards. This inventory comprises

9.99
■ The population and its assets such as homes and belongings, private
businesses, and industrial assets;
■ Infrastructure such as roads, drinking water, sanitation, drainage, and flood
protection infrastructure;
■ Public infrastructure like health care and school facilities;
■ Environmental and cultural assets; and
■ Economic activities.

Exposure is not static but dynamic in time, owing to, for example, changes in
physical processes, socioeconomic growth, migration, and economic changes.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 4

Vulnerability Vulnerability refers to the degree to which exposed people and their livelihoods,
along with additional items or activities such as infrastructure and natural assets,
are adversely affected by a certain hazard (Cardona et al. 2012). Hazards can cause
casualties, direct damage to assets, and disruption of services. The vulnerability
of built infrastructure is often related to the engineering design and construction
standards of these structures (for example, housing type and construction material).
Differences in human and social vulnerability are, however, more complex to
quantify because they are associated with the sociodemographic profile, livelihood
strategies, strength of social networks, and households’ access to basic services
(Tran et al. 2021).

1.2
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT
FRAMEWORK

Flood risk management is achieved through interventions that are shown to be

effective in the context of both current and future scenarios and the associated
impacts. Before starting an urban flood risk assessment of this type, its scope must
be properly defined by considering the following questions:

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 5

?
? ?

Which analysis methodologies

Which flood hazards and What is the spatial scale of
should be considered, and
consequences are relevant in the analysis and the type of
how will they influence the
both the short and long term? intervention to be considered
resolution, accuracy, and
for reducing the risk?
confidence levels?

? ? ?

Recognizing that this What existing data or models Who are the relevant
analysis is principally aimed or analyses are already stakeholders, and what is the
at the project concept available that may help meet institutional setting for existing
and preparation stage, the aim or scope of the risk management and future
what are the main aims assessment, and what must be investment decisions?
of the assessment? collected or developed?

These questions are fundamental to establishing the scope of an urban flood risk assessment
and must be considered prior to commissioning a study. Further refinement and consolidation
may take place during the inception phase1 of the assignment once the consultant has had
a chance to better understand the context of the work, but any changes in the overall scope
should be avoided once the assignment has begun. This scoping exercise should be done
in close collaboration with stakeholders, who generally have a good knowledge of the issues
and areas of concern and of past studies and intervention success. This is the first step of an
assessment and will determine the overall success of the study.

Figure 1.2 provides a framework of key issues or factors that should typically be considered
under a Level 2—that is, a strategic—flood risk assessment. It is useful to keep this framework
in mind throughout the assessment, particularly when developing the documentation (the
terms of reference) that will define the requirements for a procurement exercise. This framework
contains the primary components that will determine the focus of the proposed assessment
and must therefore be considered at an early stage. This framework can also act as a reminder
throughout the assessment that will help ensure that the intended objectives, activities, and
outcomes for the study are met. The various aspects of this framework are discussed in more
detail later in the chapter. In addition to the items shown in figure 1.2, which focus mainly on the
technical aspects of the analysis, it is important to have a grasp of the institutional mechanisms
in place and the data and models that are available for the assessment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 6

Figure 1.2 Project Framework for a Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment

Strengthen or improve flood risk management ​

OBJECTIVES

River or Flash Pluvial or Coastal Groundwater Semi-

fluvial floods overland floods floods permanent

TYPES OF URBAN
FLOODS

Catchment or Neighborhood or

City or town Building or structure
drainage basin community
SCALES OF
DATA WITHIN THE
ASSESSMENT

Structural Nonstructural

TYPES OF
INTERVENTIONS

Number of people Transport and access Environmental and

Economic losses
affected routes affected other social indicators

TYPES OF RISK
INDICATORS

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 7

1.3
AIMS OF THE ASSESSMENT

The Level 2 assessment would normally follow a Level 1 (preliminary) study that
will have highlighted the scale of flood risk, identified flood hot spots, framed
the flood risk within the wider city-scale risk context, and provided a starting
point for further discussion and a focus for additional studies. The purpose of
the Level 2 assessment is to build on this preliminary understanding and develop
sufficient knowledge, data, and outcome certainty to support strategic flood risk
management decisions and investment planning. This assessment normally has
several key aims, described below.

Develop or improve the This includes the processes that result in flooding; the sources and pathways of
baseline understanding flooding; and the people, assets, and infrastructure exposed to flooding (often
of flooding in a city. referred to as the “receptors”). The assessment will begin to characterize the flood
hazard by developing statistical information on the likely frequency of flooding or
events of a particular severity—often referred to as “design storms” for extreme
rainfall or as a “design hydrograph (level or flow)” for extreme river conditions
or storm surge levels. It must be remembered that these design events do not
represent specific events but reflect simulated conditions that may be expected to
occur with a given frequency (often referred to as “return periods”).

Develop sufficiently To cover a wide range of strategic planning activities, the data will include, if
accurate and reliable possible, maps of sufficient resolution to enable the identification of individual
flood hazard data. buildings and assets that may flood. These maps will depict inundation depths
and extent (usually in the form of gridded water depth) for different return periods
based on hydrological assessment and hydraulic modeling of the urban area and
surrounding catchment areas that drain into or through the urban area.

Quantify flood risk in a Quantification of risk supports the analysis, prioritization, justification, and selection
meaningful way. of mitigation options, ensuring that the decisions made are both robust and
defendable. It can incorporate different aspects of risk, such as the impact on
buildings and contents, the numbers and susceptibility of the affected population,

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 8

the damage to other assets and infrastructure, and economic losses as well
as the negative environmental impact that often accompanies urban floods.
Quantification of risk is vitally important to provide a basis for assessing the benefits
of interventions, allowing for the cost-effective use of often limited resources.

Develop and test a The hazard and risk modeling framework should evaluate these options and
range of mitigation strategies, which may comprise both structural and nonstructural interventions.
options and adaptation Structural interventions should include the full array of gray, green, and blue
strategies under a interventions, in which the green-blue options are often also referred to as “nature-
range of potential based solutions.”2 These interventions should be implemented within the models
scenarios. where possible and tested against a range of both current and future scenarios to
assess their effectiveness and benefits against an agreed-upon set of objectives.

Prepare an The plan should identify short-, medium-, and long-term sustainable investments
investment plan. with a focus on integrated and interagency flood risk management. To prioritize
interventions as part of this investment plan, an initial evaluation of the costs and
benefits as well as the potential environmental and social impacts shall be carried
out. Stakeholder input is of particular importance in this step to ensure sensible
and achievable options and achieve full support and buy-in for the investment
plan proposal.

Create a vehicle for Engagement with stakeholders can build capacity and create a springboard for
improving government further promotion of integrated sustainable urban development initiatives. The
engagement. creation of flood hazard and risk maps, as well as the discussions about potential
interventions, provide unique opportunities to engage stakeholders, generate a
common understanding of the flood issues, and generate support for interventions
to increase urban resilience.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 9

1.4
TYPES OF FLOOD
HAZARDS

Urban floods can have very different characteristics. For example, the urban flood
of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 resulted from a hurricane-driven
storm surge and subsequent failure of the embankment system around the city.
Bangkok flooded in 2011 because the Chao Phraya River system had insufficient
capacity to contain the high river flows upstream of the city. The floods of Jakarta
in 2021 resulted from heavy monsoon rains and affected tens of thousands of
people. The various origins of flooding aside, other factors such as variations in
spatial terrain elevation may result in very different urban flood behavior.

It is clear from these historical events that it is important to understand the

characteristics of the specific flood events because they can be quite different and
will require different approaches. Some key relevant considerations include

■ Origins of the flooding, such as direct rainfall, large rivers, coasts, inland
lakes, mountainous regions, and groundwater;
■ Causes of the flooding—from blockages, erosion, breaches, or structural
failure (dam or dike failure; glacial lake outburst flood, commonly referred to
as “GLOF”; dune breaches; and so on) to lack of drainage capacity;
■ Geography of the receiving area, which could be steep, flat, or constrained
and could also exhibit natural or human-induced subsidence;
■ Speed of flooding onset, which could be rapid with little warning or slow
with ample warning; and
■ Joint occurrence of landslides including debris and mudslides.

This handbook addresses four primary types of urban flooding: river or fluvial
floods, pluvial floods, coastal floods, and flash floods (figure 1.3). Each flood hazard
requires a different modeling approach that contains some common aspects but
also key technical differences. It is important to be aware that a flood hazard may
also become more significant under future conditions—for example, in low-lying
coastal areas because of sea level rise or in some cases exacerbated by land
subsidence. Such areas may not only suffer more coastal flooding but also become
more prone to pluvial flooding because of drainage issues resulting from the higher
sea levels.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 10

Figure 1.3 Four Common Types of Floods and Their Causes

RIVER OR
1
Insufficient capacity and/
FLUVIAL or protection during high
FLOODS discharge, resulting in overflow EXCESSIVE RAIN SNOWFALL

into urban areas OVERFLOWING

WATER
Examples:
Bangkok, 2011; NORMAL WATER
Mississippi River flood, 2019 LEVEL

PLUVIAL
2
Insufficient capacity of the
FLOODS urban drainage system during
STRAIN ON
rainfall events, resulting in
DRAINAGE
flooded urban areas  SYSTEM
Examples:
Houston, 2017;
Paramaribo, Suriname, 2022

COASTAL
3
Inundation of low-lying land
FLOODS by tidal water during storms HIGH WINDS
(cyclones, extratropical storms),
resulting in flooding in t he city
Examples:
STORM SURGE
New Orleans, 2005;
Beira, Mozambique, 2019 WATER COMES ASHORE

FLASH Rapid onset of damaging

4 FLOODS flooding due to intense rainfall

run-off from nearby hilly terrain EXTREME RAINFALL

and/or a dam or dike breach

Examples:
Brumadinho Dam, Brazil, 2019;
Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands,
DANGEROUS DEBRIS
2021

Source: Adapted from Zurich 2020.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 11

It is essential to recognize that the different urban flood types can have important
interactions and that compound flood events (that is, combinations of flood
mechanisms) may be relevant to consider during the assessment (Bevacqua
et al. 2019; Valle-Levinson, Olabarrieta, and Heilman 2020). For example, a
low-lying city near the coast with a gravity-based drainage system may face
predominantly pluvial floods. However, the impact of pluvial flooding can be much
more severe if this event coincides with a high water level at sea due to storms
or during spring tides. Also, future sea level rise and increased rainfall amounts
or intensity may place further pressure on the capacity of the urban drainage
system. As these examples highlight, such interactions should be identified during
scoping of the urban flood risk assessment and an appropriate modeling approach
tailored accordingly.

1.5
TYPES OF
CONSEQUENCES

Urban floods may result in very different consequences depending on the

density of the built-up area and the wide variety of urban activities that may take
place. Flooding has four primary types of consequences (figure 1.4), but these
consequences can be very different because of variations in the three main risk
factors identified earlier:

9.99

Hazards, by type of flood and Exposure of the urban area and Vulnerability of the affected people
characteristics of flooding—for its population, economic activities, and assets, which is especially
example, water depth and velocity and environmental and cultural relevant in cities of low- and middle-
but also the duration of flooding, heritage; and income countries, where rich and
speed of onset, and water quality poor neighborhoods may live side
(such as salinity, chemical waste, by side.
and sewage);

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 12

In addition, it is important to be aware that consequences can also vary in the

future owing to future urban growth, industrialization, or climate change. Each
consequence requires a different approach—having some common aspects but
technical differences in modeling.

Figure 1.4 Consequences of Flooding, by Type

HARM TO PEOPLE
1

Ethiopia, October 2018

Deaths, injuries, other health impacts (from
large flow depth or high flow velocities),
and displacement (from large flood extent
and long duration)

DAMAGE TO ASSETS
2

Sudan, October 2020

Direct damage to assets such as
buildings (such as homes, markets,
schools); infrastructure (such as bridges);
agricultural crops; industrial facilities
and so on

ECONOMIC LOSSES AND

3

Lao PDR, August 2018

SOCIAL IMPACTS

Interruption of economic activities (such as

power outages, water supply interruptions,
access restrictions and so on), job losses,
poverty increase

ENVIRONMENTAL AND
Sierra Leone, August 2017

4 CULTURAL DAMAGE

Leaks of polluted substances (such as oil),

damage of cultural sites (such as religious
sites, museums)

Photos: © World Bank.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 13

Covering all relevant consequences for a specific urban context in a Level 2

assignment is paramount. The direct damage of floods to assets such as buildings
and infrastructure is an obvious and well-known consequence in all urban
environments, and there are various methods to quantify these damages. However,
the indirect economic losses and also environmental and cultural damage can be
significant consequences of floods. Hence, these must also be investigated with
sufficient detail despite the challenges to precisely quantifying these consequences.
Finally, it is also important to realize that some consequences can be sensitive
(for example, loss of life or damage of cultural heritage) and thus should be handled
with care in discussions with the stakeholders.

1.6
TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS

Many interventions are available for urban areas, and there are several different
ways to classify them. One of the primary means of classification is between
structural and nonstructural interventions.

Structural interventions for urban areas include, for example, dikes or storm surge
barriers as well as bioswales and retention areas. These are often also referred to
as gray, green, or blue infrastructure interventions—the latter two often combined
as “nature-based solutions.” Nonstructural interventions include changes to
building codes or improvements to warning systems and response capability
or strengthening and aligning the institutional setup of flood risk management
across agencies.

Structural interventions are often costlier and thus may require significant capital
investments and may take many years to implement within an urban environment
where space is limited, and social safeguards may take time to fulfill. Therefore,
having an idea of the budget, the time necessary for implementing the intervention,
and the types of interventions applicable to the given situation at the beginning of a
project can be useful.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 14

Figure 1.5 Types of Structural Interventions for Urban Flood Risk Management

GRAY

1 Examples: Dikes, canals, pump

stations, storm surge barriers,
flood walls, seawalls

BLUE

2
Examples: Retention ponds,
floodplain extension,
underground water storage,
water squares, bioswales

GREEN
3 Examples: Mangroves,
salt marshes, green roofs, parks

Note: For more details about gray, blue, and green infrastructural interventions,
see the glossary.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 15

1.7
APPROACHES—FROM
DETERMINISTIC TO
PROBABILISTIC

Deterministic modeling. The investigation of flooding in a city or region is often

initiated by a particularly damaging event, and where the data allow, it is common
to attempt to replicate this event using suitable numerical modeling techniques.
This can be a useful exercise to understand that particular event, but it can also
help improve understanding of the flood dynamics or issues in the study area.
The results of this model can be used for future broader model calibration or
verification. When placed in the context of other historical events, it can also
provide a starting point for understanding the future likelihood (or probability)
of extreme events. This type of single-event modeling can be referred to as
“deterministic” modeling because each event has a single set of inputs, which leads
to a specific outcome.

Semi-probabilistic modeling. Where flood hazard or risk is being assessed,

it is insufficient to base the analysis on a single event. Both hazard and risk must
include an element of the likelihood (or probability) of occurrence across a range
of possible events. For a flood hazard assessment, this means typically that the
analysis must include several flood events of varied severity and with a defined
probability of occurring (more than three but usually around five or six return
periods). This will provide the range of severity and probability of flooding in bands
(associated with the event return period) at any given location across the study area.
For a flood risk assessment, this event probability is also used as the probability
of an estimated amount of damage or other impact occurring and is combined
with the impacts of other more or less frequent events to provide a fuller picture of
the potential impacts.

This approach to modeling is often referred to as “semi-probabilistic.” Each discrete

event is synthetic and, in one sense, is deterministic because it is derived from a
single set of inputs, resulting in a single outcome. However, in reality, it does not
represent a specific flood event but rather the theoretical outcome of a statistical
event of a given likelihood (or probability).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 16

Probabilistic modeling. This semi-probabilistic approach tends to be the most

common method of carrying out a hazard or risk assessment because it can be
relatively quick and simple to implement, and it is relatively easy to understand
and use the results. More recently, however, a fuller probabilistic approach is being
promoted that, instead of using a single statistical event (derived to represent a
single probability), attempts to replicate the real world and uses a synthetic set
of climate (or coastal) events. This event set usually will contain a vast number of
possible scenarios, typically 10,000 or more—including occasional occurrences
of the most extreme probable events down to multiple incidences of the more
frequent low-impact events. It will also include different joint probabilities of all
the main sources of flooding as well as different flood mechanisms (for example,
high tides coupled with heavy rain) that may result in the same frequency of event
but with a different distribution or extent of flooding. This “probabilistic” approach
to both flood hazard and flood risk can be computationally heavy, but with
improvements in computer power and better global datasets that can drive this
type of analysis, it is becoming the preferred approach under some conditions.

Notably, the terms describing these approaches to modeling—deterministic,

semi-probabilistic, and probabilistic—can be used in different ways and may mean
different things to some firms or individuals. For example, some practitioners might
refer to a semi-probabilistic analysis as either a “deterministic” assessment or a
“probabilistic” assessment. It is, therefore, important at the start to be very clear
about what is required so there is no misunderstanding.

Complex scenarios such as barrage operations; blockages; or joint probability of

different flood sources, different antecedent conditions, different storm durations,
variable distribution of localized storms, and so on, can all be considered in a more
realistic and representative way using this approach. A fully probabilistic approach
should be considered more seriously as these methods become more established.

The methods described above relate to developing flood hazard data. Either of
these semi-probabilistic or fully probabilistic methods can further define risk
and will be carried out in essentially the same way regardless of the hazard data.
However, the process of developing a probabilistic risk assessment first requires a
probabilistic hazard dataset: instead of applying the flood data for each individual
return period event to the exposure data, and calculating the impact in bands, the
fully probabilistic approach applies an effectively infinite range of probability and
depths of flooding across the entire study area. A probabilistic risk assessment can
therefore give a more representative distribution of risk metrics across the study
area than the banded approach associated with the semi-probabilistic approach.
In addition, the probabilistic approach can be used for remodeling the flood hazard
with the intervention built into the hydrological or hydraulic modeling process.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 17

A different set of flood depth and probability maps will be generated that can then
be applied to the same risk model to determine in detail how the intervention is
likely to change the overall risk.

Because the semi-probabilistic approach tends to be more common for Level 2

studies, the handbook will mainly focus on the semi-probabilistic approach, using
discrete extreme events at different return periods (probabilities) to deal with the
extreme events. In chapter 2, the handbook elaborates more fully on how a full
probabilistic assessment may be carried out as necessary.

1.8
EXISTING DATA AND
MODELS

Studies may already have been carried out to assess flood issues in a certain
urban environment. These studies often contain valuable insights and information,
which can be useful for the ongoing assignment. In addition to this, data may
have been collected and models developed as part of previous assignments or
other programs, which could be used as a starting point. Open-source and global
datasets can also be used to complement previous datasets. Identification of all
potential data sources, models, and reports is essential to make optimal use of
the existing knowledge and data.

Relevant questions related to data and documents for urban flood risk assessments
include the following:

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 18

What hydrometeorological data

? What topography data are available? ? are available?

Such data include, for instance, global digital terrain These data include, for instance, global datasets—such as
models (DTMs)—such as Shuttle Radar Topography Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation (MSWEP)
Mission (SRTM) and Multi-Error-Removed Improved-Terrain or European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
(MERIT)—and locally available data such as laser imaging, (ECMWF) Reanalysis v5 (ERA5)—but also local datasets
detection, and ranging (LiDAR); high-resolution satellite or with time series of rainfall and winds, water levels, or river
orthophoto imagery; drone survey data; and bathymetric discharges depending on relevant hazard types from
surveys of water bodies. hydrometeorological institutes or other relevant agencies or
authorities (such as ports or airports).

Is there any existing flood protection

infrastructure, and what is the state Are there any existing numerical
? of maintenance or conveyance and
? models for flood hazard modeling?
protection level?

Infrastructure documentation includes, for instance, If so, when were these done, by whom, by what method,
the layout and dimensions of primary and secondary and how accurate are they? For instance, could existing
drainage infrastructure such as road drainage, canals, hydrological, hydraulic, and risk models be reused, could
culverts, pump stations, and tidal gates, as well as the some component data be extracted, and are the models
dimensions and characteristics of coastal or fluvial available under data sharing arrangements?
embankments, dunes, seawalls, mangroves, and so on.

What master plans and design studies

Are any existing flood, exposure, or
? vulnerability data available?
? have been developed, and to what
extent have they been implemented?

Seek, for instance, data on global or local flood Often, they provide useful information and data for
hazard maps, known and mapped flood hot spots, existing infrastructure such as drainage networks and hot
OpenStreetMap data, cadastre system data, building spots of areas at risk based on historical knowledge or
types and replacements costs, population distribution previous modeling.
and characteristics (age, gender, income, and so on), and
historic losses during flood events.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 19

The availability and accuracy of the existing data or models can influence the
approach and determine the accuracy achievable within the Level 2 analysis and
may significantly affect the time and budget required.

Data and document management are essential throughout an urban flood risk
assessment. Data should be in a uniform coordinate system and uniform reference
level. Collected data but also generated data during the project must be stored
properly to ensure that these data are available for later use and can also be
transferred to relevant local agencies. The data should be accompanied with
sufficient metadata describing the origin, entities, and values of the data under
consideration. Online users can be of great help to exchange and review newly
generated datasets between the various parties involved in such an assignment.

1.9
INSTITUTIONAL SETTING

Before the start of an urban flood risk assessment (or at least very early in the
process), an analysis of the stakeholders and institutional setting should be
carried out to understand who is best placed to take ownership, who can provide
support, and who are the data and knowledge holders. Tailoring solutions based
on the stakeholder and institutional setting is essential for the long-term success
of interventions.

Relevant questions in this regard include the following:

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 20

?
? ?
What are government bodies’ What legislation or policies
or institutions’ responsibilities are relevant for flood What funding streams exist for
or involvement in flood management—taxes, the operation, maintenance,
reduction, adaptation, or protection levels, land and investments in flood
management—prevention, ownership, setbacks, planning, management?
planning, and emergency and building permits?
response?

? ?

What is the existing role and Who holds critical data

knowledge of communities in for flood hazard and risk
flood management—flooding analysis, such as rainfall,
warning systems, emergency water levels, existing drainage
plans, and evacuation routes? infrastructure, recorded
damages, and exposure?

An initial analysis of these aspects should be done during the preparation for
the urban flood risk assessment. Especially the role of the institutional setup in
flood risk management is critical to analyze in parallel with the more technical
analysis because a convoluted setup with overlapping mandates and with many
agencies involved can be a source of (increasing) flood risk by itself. These aspects
can be further detailed during the study and also taken into consideration when
interventions are identified and prioritized.

It is advisable to set up a working group with relevant beneficiaries to support

the urban flood risk assessment. Members of the working group could have a
mandate for managing floods, implementing works, holding relevant data, using
or paying for the services of the flood risk management or drainage system, or any

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 21

combination of these. Relevant stakeholders often include hydrometeorological

agencies, public works departments, disaster risk management entities,
environmental and urban planning authorities, and local communities. A working
group’s tasks may include reviewing the terms of reference, delivering relevant data
and documents for the assessment, providing access to sites and support to field
trips, gathering relevant other stakeholders for working sessions, and providing
recommendations for the deliverables.

REFERENCES

Bevacqua, E., D. Maraun, M. I. Vousdoukas, E. Voukouvalas, M. Vrac, L. Mentaschi, and

M. Widmann. 2019. “Higher Probability of Compound Flooding from Precipitation and Storm
Surge in Europe under Anthropogenic Climate Change.” Science Advances 5 (9): eaaw5531.
doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaw5531.

Cardona, O. D., M. K. van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. McGregor, R. Perez, R. S.

Pulwarty, E. L. F. Schipper, and B. T. Sinh. 2012. “Determinants of Risk: Exposure and
Vulnerability.” In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited
by C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, et al.,
65–108. New York: Cambridge University Press.

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.” (OJ L 288/27, 6.11.2007). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060&rid=3.

Tran, V. T., D.-A. An-Vo, G. Cockfield, and S. Mushtaq. 2021. “Assessing Livelihood Vulnerability
of Minority Ethnic Groups to Climate Change: A Case Study from the Northwest Mountainous
Regions of Vietnam.” Sustainability 13 (13): 7106. doi:10.3390/su13137106.

Valle-Levinson, A., M. Olabarrieta, and L. Heilman. 2020. “Compound Flooding in Houston-

Galveston Bay during Hurricane Harvey.” Science of the Total Environment 747: 141272.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.14272.

Zurich. 2020. “Three Common Types of Flood Explained.” Article, June 8. Zurich Insurance
Group, Zurich.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Defining Urban Flood Risk and Project Scope 22

ENDNOTES

1 The inception phase of the project is a key phase of a project. This is when the consultant begins to
get familiar with the assignment, pulls the data together, and meets the stakeholders. The Inception
Report is a key milestone as it refines and confirms the approach, level of detail, accuracy, timing,
deliverables, risks associated with the project; maps the stakeholders; and generally states how the
project will proceed. The end of this stage is normally marked by a formal agreement from the client
before proceeding to the actual assessment part of the assignment.
2 Gray, green, and blue interventions refer to climate change adaptation or mitigation through
“gray” infrastructures (hard or engineering approaches) or through “green” and “blue” approaches
encompassing biophysical systems, ecosystems, and their services. For more detail, see
the respective definitions in the glossary.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 23

CHAPTER

FLOOD HAZARD
ASSESSMENT

2 1 2 3 4 5

PROJECT SCOPING HAZARD MODELING RISK MODELING INTERVENTIONS CLOSEOUT

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 24

2.1
INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Flood hazard assessments capture and quantify the flood characteristics—

extent, depth, speed—in a particular location and attribute a likely frequency
of occurrence to a given severity of flooding. To achieve this, some initial
considerations and questions are necessary:

1 2

The first consideration is whether a numerical modeling If the answer to the above question is “Yes,” what will be
analysis is actually required. The most probable answer the most appropriate modeling approach to use? For flood
is “Yes.” However, situations may arise where sufficient hazard modeling, two aspects of flooding are typically
records over a sufficiently long period of time may analyzed or modeled separately: (1) how much water is
provide all the answers needed, at least for a preliminary there (the hydrology); and (2) where does the water go
Level 1 assessment. (the hydraulics).

3 4

When considering hydrology, it is important to understand When considering hydraulics, the approach is often a
the source of the floodwater. It can be directly from compromise between the level of accuracy possible and
rainfall (usually referred to as pluvial flooding); from rivers the time, money, and data available to carry out the work.
exceeding their capacity (fluvial flooding); from the sea The approach selected must meet the minimum required
(coastal flooding—that is, elevated tidal levels during resolution and quality required for the problem at hand
storms); or, more likely, a combination of these. The source and the project stage. Hydraulic modeling can typically be
of the flooding determines what type of boundary categorized dimensionally—as 0D, 1D, 2D, 1D-2D, or 3D—
conditions for the modeling must be prescribed. and can be run as a steady state or unsteady state model,
depending on the dynamics of the flooding problem
being analyzed. Figure 2.1 serves as an aid to selecting
the appropriate model.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 25

5 6

Which digital terrain model (DTM) is necessary for the Which physical features are important in determining
assessment? What horizontal resolution and vertical flow paths and areas of inundation such as man-made
accuracy is required? How can the vertical reference level and natural waterways and drainage infrastructure
of the DTM be tied to other relevant levels (for example, (such as bridges, culverts, pumping stations, retention
mean sea levels and embankment and invert levels) ponds, and flood defense embankments), and what kind
to ensure consistency? What is the role of subsidence of gray infrastructure or nature-based interventions are
(whether natural or human-induced) on the ground considered? And should they be included during hazard
elevations, and should the analysis account for this? assessment, option analysis, or both?

Does the assessment need to be deterministic or

probabilistic? What benefits would each bring? Related
to this, which flood simulations and scenarios should be
carried out: a set of different events at different return
periods or a sufficiently long synthetic time series? How will
the model results be calibrated or validated against reality?

Hydrological and hydraulic modeling in an urban setting is not an exact science;

adequate or sufficient skills and judgment will always be required to select the detail
and resolution required and the best overall method. The aim is to balance the cost
and time of doing the study with the resulting accuracy and confidence required.
Figure 2.1 demonstrates this relationship between effort or cost, quality of the
outputs, and the benefits realized through carrying out the study. The benefits link
directly to the requirements of the study; therefore, the idea is to select the level of
benefit that matches the optimum cost and quality.

Costs and time can escalate exponentially by attempting to achieve high accuracy
and by including details that will not significantly alter the analysis outcome.
It is important to remember the 80-20 rule: It is normally possible to produce
acceptable strategic (Level 2) results (that is, 80 percent of what might be possible)

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 26

for comparatively little cost. The remaining 20 percent, which often may not be
needed, is where the escalating costs can lie.

Flood modeling consists of a chain of processes and relies on a range of data types
and sources, whereby the overall quality and benefits from the modeling results
are dependent on the weakest link in that chain. Ensuring that all aspects of the
process are optimal will help ensure that the modeling meets the requirements of
the analysis.

Figure 2.1 Trade-Offs in Flood Hazard Modeling, by Analysis Level

Analysis Analysis Analysis

Level Level Level

1 2 3

Quality

Benefit
Cost

Note: Figure illustrates the relationship between the strategic level of hydrological or
hydraulic modeling and (a) the cost (including time and effort), (b) the quality of outputs, and
(c) the benefits required from the study. Level 1 analysis refers to preliminary analysis; Level 2
to strategic analysis; and Level 3 to detailed, high-resolution analysis (as further discussed in
the Overview and chapter 1).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 27

2.2
HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS

The hydrological analysis required for a Level 2 flood modeling exercise considers
mainly the inputs to the hydraulic modeling process. A key first step in setting
up the analysis is to understand the main drivers of flooding for a specific urban
context and the possibility of joint occurrence of these drivers. Typical drivers of
flooding in a coastal city are local rainfall, high river water levels, and elevated sea
levels due to tides in combination with (extra-)tropical wind events. These drivers
are not static but may increase over time because of climate change and other
anthropogenic changes (for example, reservoirs or upstream deforestation). It is
critical to understand the drivers and their potential joint occurrence at an early
stage to focus the hydrological analysis.

Flood hazard and risk modeling requires the consideration of a range of flood
events of increasing severity, which normally involves simulating storms or events
of different return period events (or frequencies). These typically may range, for
example, from relatively frequent events (at 2-year return periods) that would
happen every year or so, up to events that would be far more severe but relatively
unlikely to occur (at 100-year return periods). This analysis—to determine the scale
and frequency of flood events in a given area—is a key to understanding the flood
risk, and the outputs of the frequency analysis will be flows, storm surge, or rainfall
events for a range of severity that will be used to drive the hydraulic modeling.

The importance of the hydrological part of the analysis should not be underestimated.
It is heavily data dependent (particularly on long records) and may employ a range
of statistical techniques to deal with uncertainty; joint probability (for example,
the chance of different sources of flooding occurring at the same time); and the
effect of spatial variability and scale. The outputs are usually a set of time series of
event data that will be used as boundary conditions for the hydraulic modeling.

Calibration of the hydrological models requires the use of measured data captured
from one or more flood events that can be used to drive the models being
developed for the study area. This helps define the parameters within the model
that best represent the processes (either physically or numerically) and can be
based on simple statistical “goodness of fit” measures. This process will also aid a
better understanding of the physical processes during the event, which may not
have been recorded.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 28

2.2.1 Types of Boundary Conditions

and Joint Probability

Five types of model boundary conditions are typically applied within a flood
model: (1) rainfall, (2) infiltration, (3) flow, (4) water levels and waves, and (5) pumps
and flow control structures. Whether only a few or all are relevant and must be
analyzed and defined in detail very much depends on the specific urban setting.
Without being exhaustive, the subsections below describe the details of setting
these boundary conditions as well as the various possible combinations that may
occur. Table 2.1 provides some examples of cities that have been subject to these
various conditions. Assessment of readily available data, studies, and local expert
knowledge are essential to quickly identify which of these boundary conditions are
critical for flood hazard and risk mapping purposes.

Table 2.1 Flood Model Boundary Conditions Affecting

Selected Cities

CITY EXAMPLES LOCAL RIVER FLOW TIDE STORM SURGE

RAINFALL AND/OR WAVES

Kinshasa (Congo, Dem. Rep.), Bamako (Mali) – –

Banjul (The Gambia), Monrovia (Liberia), – –

Paramaribo (Suriname)a

Hai Phong (Vietnam), Khulna (Bangladesh)

Beira (Mozambique), Cox’s Bazar (Bangladesh) –

Note: These cities face some small elevated tidal levels due to wind, but this effect of storm surge is generally very small
(less than 10 centimeters) because of the very mild wind climate in these regions.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 29

Because multiple flood hazard mechanisms can play roles within a specific urban
setting, the joint probability of these mechanisms is therefore crucial to understand
at an early stage of a Level 2 assessment. The joint probability will determine how
the boundary conditions must be defined to evaluate realistic urban flood scenarios
for extreme events. If a city is threatened by local rainfall and storm surge by
cyclones (as occurred in Beira, Mozambique), then the question becomes which
combinations of rainfall and storm surge should be selected for flood mapping.

A local rainfall event with a 100-year return period in combination with a 100-year
storm surge event can be a realistic scenario for estimating the 100-year flood
situation if the storm surge and rainfall would be fully correlated. But if these two
processes are completely uncorrelated, then this scenario of 100-year rainfall
and 100-year storm surge has a return period of 10,000 years. In that case,
a 100-year storm surge situation and a 1-year local rainfall event (and vice versa) are
realistic scenarios. This example highlights the importance of calculating the joint
probability of different hazard mechanisms to achieve realistic flood mapping of
urban environments.

2.2.1.1 Rainfall

Rainfall data are almost always among the main input requirements for citywide
(Level 2) flood modeling. These data can usually be applied as a direct input to
each cell of the 2D model grid (a common approach for pluvial flooding), often
referred to as the “rain-on-grid” approach. Rainfall data can also be applied to a
separate rainfall runoff (hydrological) model for the upstream basin to derive inflows
(hydrographs) to drive the hydraulic model (a common approach where rivers are
the main source of flooding).

Whether the modeling exercise aims to replicate a specific event or to develop

representative “design storms” with particular statistical properties (that is,
a specific return period), the rainfall data’s accuracy is important. In addition to
the total amount of rainfall, major factors in a given flood event include the spatial
distribution of rainfall within a basin and the changes in intensity throughout
the period. The following factors are important to consider regarding rainfall data:

■ Local historical rainfall records, if of reasonable quality, can prove extremely

valuable, and even short records (spanning only one or two rainy seasons)
can provide useful calibration and verification data.
■ Remote-sensing rainfall data (MSWEP, TRMM, GPM, ERA5, and CHIRPS)
can be used if local data are limited in coverage, duration, or quality.1

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 30

■ Urban flood modeling requires short-duration (subdaily) rainfall inputs, which

normally require automatic gauges (for example, tipping bucket, gravimetric,
drip, count, and so on). The widespread use of these types of rain gauges is
a relatively recent development in hydrometry, and so the length of record
may extend only a few decades. Notwithstanding, the value of even these
short periods of record should not be underestimated as this will inform
the selection of design storm duration and intensity, which can be very
significant in urban flood generation.
■ Most meteorological services only provide daily values (mostly from manual
gauges), which provide part of the overall rainfall characteristics. However,
the distribution and intensity within a single day are essential.
■ It is often necessary to use data from a range of sources to achieve the best
practical outcome.
■ Intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves, which are often a key output from
the previously mentioned frequency analysis, can be produced through a
number of techniques; the use of local data is the preferred method. Where
local data are not available, regional curves can be used and adjusted to fit
the local recorded daily or, more preferably, subdaily data.

Local rainfall data records often cover short periods and often contain
inconsistencies. Global data can be used as an alternative but are also far from
perfect. A robust assessment of the data accuracy (both locally and globally
derived) and uncertainties is key for good flood hazard mapping results. Several
simple checks may include (1) comparative double-mass curves for rain gauges
in the area of interest to highlight discrepancies or interruption of the record; and
(2) an outlier assessment before extreme value analysis, where an outlier (either
outside the expected range for the year or the season) would erroneously skew
the extreme value analysis and therefore the hazard modeling results.

2.2.1.2 Infiltration

Along with rainfall data, infiltration is an important factor to consider in the urban
flood modeling process. It is a natural process that depends on the land cover and
soil characteristics within the study area. Even within a completely natural basin,
the amount of infiltration that can occur will significantly influence the amount of
runoff generated from a given storm. It will also affect the amount of rainfall that
soaks into the ground providing recharge for groundwater resources, which in turn
will influence the baseflow within the surface-water streams and rivers.

In an urban environment, infiltration is even more critical to the way the catchment
behaves and responds to rainfall. Heavily compacted soils or extensive areas of

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 31

impermeable material (such as building roofs or paved areas) will reduce the water
soaking into the ground and therefore increase the water running off into the
drainage system. Conversely, increasing infiltration volume and rates can delay and
reduce peak flows entering the urban drainage system.

The effect infiltration can have on runoff is variable and complex, and it depends
on the type of storm (its intensity and duration) as well as the antecedent
conditions (how saturated the soil already is at the start of a storm). For simplicity,
it is sometimes assumed that infiltration is minimal over a heavily built-up area
and therefore neglected in the modeling. However, substantial parts of cities
generally still have permeable soils, and there is a growing interest in applying
green infrastructure to enhance the infiltration—such as through more permeable
pavements and the introduction of urban forests or swales. Inclusion of infiltration in
urban flood modeling is therefore essential because it is not only an important part
of the hydrological process but also can be used as one of the possible intervention
strategies to mitigate urban floods (see, for example, Bai et al. 2018).

Infiltration depends on many variables, and it is generally recommended that it be

included either explicitly or implicitly in the urban flood hazard modeling process.
Many of the current hydraulic models, when applying rainfall directly to the model
(that is, rain-on-grid methods), can explicitly include infiltration within the modeled
process by including an infiltration loss in each 2D grid cell. The infiltration rate for
each grid cell can be made time- and space-dependent to account for variations
in soil conditions. When rainfall is modeled as an inflow (that is, converted to a flow
hydrograph), infiltration tends to be simply subtracted from the rainfall as part of the
hydrological process, either as a distributed variable or simply applied as a lumped
(or averaged) value.

When infiltration is explicitly taken into account in the modeling process,

the infiltration capacity of the soil must be set. Estimates of infiltration capacity
must often be based on literature values because local data are often not available.
Typical infiltration rates for soils vary from 30 millimeters per hour for sandy soils
to less than 5 millimeters per hour for clayey soils. Notably, these values have a
large uncertainty because of the complexity and variability of the infiltration process
(for example, dependency on the existing water content, exact soil structure, depth
and texture, and so on). This uncertainty must be recognized when infiltration
is included within the flood modeling process. For further reading on rainfall
infiltration in urban environments and modeling thereof, refer to Zeleňáková,
Hudáková, and Stec (2020).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 32

2.2.1.3 Runoff

Design flow data are usually applied to a river channel or canal either as a
boundary condition to a 1D channel or directly onto a 2D surface within a river
or canal. Flow data are normally applied as a hydrograph (that is, changing flow
against time) at the upstream boundary of the model, although they can be added
at key locations within a model—for instance, at a discharge point of a controlled
system or the exit point of a culvert.

A design storm’s stream flow is ideally estimated using extreme value frequency
analysis methods based on a long and reliable stream flow record collected
at a formally recognized flow gauging station. Statistical methods are used to
extrapolate measured or, if unavailable, modeled data (for example, using annual
maxima to generate extreme events). Where stream gauging provides a sufficient
length of flow records (20 years or more), statistical analysis can be carried out on
the gauged data. Where gauge records are short but rainfall data are more readily
available, the recorded flows can be used to calibrate a rainfall runoff model to
extend the flow records for statistical analysis.

A wide range of rainfall runoff modeling approaches could be applied to urban

drainage systems, varying in complexity and applicability. They include simple
conceptual models (rational method); empirical models (curve number methods or
the Sacramento Model); physically based models (for example, the MIKE System
Hydrologique European [SHE] or Shanbei model [SBM]); and lumped versus
grid-distributed model approaches. The selection of the modeling approach and
software will largely be driven by the drainage system characteristics, the available
data, the required resolution and coverage of outputs, and often the preference of
the firm carrying out the work.

Where no gauge records exist for the basin, a combination of rainfall runoff
modeling can be applied with donor catchment or regional data. Estimating the
rainfall runoff model parameters for ungauged catchments with information from
gauged catchments is generally referred to as “regionalization” (see, for example,
Meigh, Farquharson, and Sutcliffe 1997), and widely used concepts are based
either on spatial proximity or similar catchment attributes. The statistical approach
(for example, choice of the distribution type and the fitting procedure) to determine
these relationships with the ungauged catchment can significantly affect the end
result. Because the data records are often short, data extrapolation of short time
series results in significant uncertainties for estimates of extreme events (figure 2.2).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 33

Figure 2.2 Typical Statistical Analysis Approach

HYDROLOGY
Rainfall runoff model

Boundary condition hydrographs

Flood frequency analysis

Triggering
rainfall event

River
Flood outlines for range
gauge
of return periods

River basin HYDRAULICS

boundary

Caution should always be applied when dealing with extreme river runoff events
because they are rare, usually difficult to measure, and often inferred from either
extrapolated rating curves or from uncertain measurements. The analysis should
not rely on statistical measures alone and must include an element of professional
judgment and common sense. Also, the joint occurrence of extreme river
discharges and downstream water levels (for example, due to storm surge) may
make the derivation of extreme discharge boundary conditions less straightforward,
as further discussed in the next subsection.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 34

2.2.1.4 Water Levels and Waves

Water levels and waves are often applied at the downstream end of a hydraulic
model to represent a large waterbody (for example, the sea, a lake, or even a
large river that may not be included directly within the model) to allow water to
exit or enter the model according to the downstream conditions. Setting correct
conditions may be relatively straightforward for a city located at a nontidal river.
However, it can be quite difficult in a coastal city context with a river entering
the sea where there is also the possibility of storm surge and waves. In this case,
the joint occurrence of the various drivers such as river discharge, storm surge, and
incoming high waves must be carefully considered.

In a (nontidal) river situation, a water level is generally imposed at the downstream

end of a river section. It is important that the downstream boundary (for example,
normal depth) be at least a backwater length away from the place of interest so
results (for example, scheme design) are not strongly influenced by the boundary
conditions. The boundary condition in this situation can be set up in various
ways but most commonly as (1) a stage hydrograph that can be constant or
may vary over time depending on the river flow input; or (2) a simple Manning’s
equation referred to as a “normal depth” relationship that typically depends on the
surface-water slope at that location and controls the amount of water as it leaves
(or in some cases enters) the downstream end of the model.

Deriving boundary conditions in a coastal setting is often much more complicated.

In these environments, different coastal processes (such as tides, waves, storm
surge, or even tsunamis) may result in, or have a significant impact on, flooding.
In such environments, a broad site-specific understanding of the governing coastal
processes is important. Specific attention shall be paid to the joint occurrence
of these processes, which is essential for setting good boundary conditions for
flood modeling. For example, storm surge due to tropical storms (hurricanes,
cyclones, or typhoons) and tidal water levels are independent. Another example
is a large swell event and high tidal water levels. On the other hand, storm surge
and high wind-generated waves are generally closely dependent because these
are generated by the same storm event. In deriving flood hazard scenarios with
different return periods, these dependencies must be carefully considered.

Coastal boundary conditions for water levels and waves for urban flood modeling
can be set up in several ways, most commonly (1) a stage hydrograph that allows
water to enter or leave the model, which may vary over time (such as if a storm
surge is superimposed on a tidal hydrograph); and (2) a discharge hydrograph that
enters a set amount of water into the modeling domain (for instance, because of
wave overtopping from the sea).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 35

Deriving appropriate coastal boundary conditions for these stage or discharge

hydrographs can be done in various ways by (combinations of) collecting and
analyzing local measurements or using numerical modeling from global or
tailored dynamic hydrometeorological models, depending on the specific coastal
processes and local data viability at hand. Where there is a lot of uncertainty in
these processes—and in particular, their combined influences—it is good practice
to carry out a sensitivity analysis over a range of combinations. It is also common to
use the worst (likely) case scenario to ensure that a conservative approach is taken
when looking at any mitigation options.

When specific data are concerned, the following may be considered.

Tidal water levels. Local monitoring is usually the best source but needs to be
tied into a recognized datum—for example, a time series that picks up full cycle
maximum and minimum levels for a minimum of two years. Measurements and tidal
predictions are generally given referenced to mean sea level (MSL) or chart datum,
which are rarely exactly related to the local datum (the DTM), so additional effort will
be required to find this relationship.

Local tide astronomic tide tables are available for most cities and ports around
the globe. These can be used with time series data and combined with storm
surge estimates through empirical methods such as the World Meteorological
Organization’s “Guide to Storm Surge Forecasting” (WMO 2011).

A long-term water-level observational dataset is required if statistical analysis is

required to derive extreme water levels for rare storm surge events as a result of
tropical or extratropical weather systems. A time series of (at least) 10-20 years is
often required to estimate storm surge levels up to a return period of 100 years with
reasonable accuracy.

Global models such as the Global Tide and Storm Surge Model (GTSM) may
provide tide and surge information if local data do not exist (Muis et al. 2016).
These types of global models, however, do not capture intense local storms such as
tropical weather systems for lack of resolution.

In regions prone to tropical storms, more advanced and detailed models are
generally required to derive representative storm surge and wave scenarios and
statistics when long-term data series are not available. Coastal boundary conditions
of storm surge levels and waves can be generated by running a set of historical or
synthetic storms derived from the statistics of the historical storms (such as track,

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 36

intensity, pressure, and so on). For a recent overview, see Bakker et al. (2022) and
the references therein.

River levels. Large rivers through or downstream from cities can be dealt with
either as a fully dynamic part of the model, requiring bathymetry and flow inputs,
or as a boundary condition where only the water level is applied at the point where
the modeled drainage would enter (or be influenced by) the river. Normally only
the latter is needed, but this requires some understanding of the river behavior and
historical level records and often depends on the relationship with flow.

Local river-level observations and even discharge information is generally available

if the river is sufficiently large. The quality of the time series data must be carefully
checked for consistency and completeness. Also, changes over time that may affect
water levels—such as sedimentation or erosion; upstream changes that affect river
flows (deforestation reservoirs); or local interventions (for example, construction of
embankments)—need careful attention before time series are used for estimating
extreme events through statistical extrapolation.

Waves. Wave overtopping due to waves (wind, swell, or both) can cause
considerable additional volumes of floodwater and an overtopping of a structure
or defense and must be considered in exposed locations. Swell waves are
characterized by their very regular long crests and long wave periods, whereas
local wind waves are short-crested and have a more irregular pattern and short
periods. A first-order practical guideline for identifying the distinction between
nearshore swell and wind waves is a period of 10 seconds. If nearshore waves are
relevant for a specific urban setting, a good understanding and thorough analysis
of the governing wave processes for the situation is paramount.

Local nearshore wave observations for representative sea states are generally
rare. Thus, long-term hindcast modeling is often necessary to translate offshore
wave information to nearshore information for exposed locations. This requires
information on incoming offshore swell and wind waves and/or local wind data, as
well as detailed bathymetry to accurately represent important wave processes such
as shoaling, refraction, and breaking.

Empirical methods are available for locations where wind waves are unlikely to be
a significant issue (say, in estuaries or on sheltered coasts) based on wind fetch
and depth. Simple 1D models such as SWAN 1D or XBeach can be used along
straight open coasts, needing beach profiles, offshore swell/wind waves, and wind
to estimate beach overtopping rates. If the bathymetry of the coast is more complex
(for example, owing to the presence of islands or the foreshore bathymetry with
bars and channels), 2D models are generally required to define accurate wave

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 37

conditions near the coast. Also, these wave models must be applied in combination
with tide or storm surge levels when temporal and spatial variations in nearshore
water depth cannot be neglected.

2.2.1.5 Pumps and Gates

Flood defense or water-level management structures may already exist in flood-

prone areas of cities and must be included within the analysis to ensure a full
understanding of the flood dynamics. These structures may require simulation of
discharge rates with a nonlinear response. This is normally achievable as a dynamic
linked 1D element. The main features that are likely to require consideration as
boundary conditions or flow control features are listed below.

Pumping Flow Control Gates or Barrages

■ Pumping rates for a pumping station normally ■ Discharge rates from control gates normally relate
relate to local water levels (either upstream-only to both upstream and downstream water levels and
or upstream-downstream relationship) up to a the type of structure (for example, tidal flaps). Thus,
maximum installed capacity. dynamic simulations are required.
■ The pumping station discharge rate is often limited ■ Gates and barrages may also have control rules that
to a stepwise control through switching multiple depend on other non-flood-related factors such as
pumps on or off. irrigation, hydropower, navigation, environmental
■ Control rules are sometimes automated, normally considerations, and so on. It may be necessary to
documented, but occasionally recorded in personal consider these factors as different scenarios that
memory. They need to be simplified and set up may alter the return period of the event.
within the model. ■ As with pumps, it may be possible to simplify
■ In some circumstances, implementation can be the feature within the model to a time- or level-
simplified by applying a predefined time-varying dependent discharge boundary condition that
discharge hydrograph at the pump station location. reflects the discharges to a large waterbody such as
This has some limitations for more detailed analysis the sea.
but can be used to test the principle.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 38

2.3
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

2.3.1 Summary of Hydraulic Modeling Options

The hydraulic model is used to define and characterize the flood extent and depth
as well as, if necessary, water velocity, duration, and speed of onset (and, in rare
situations, could provide erosion, sediment load, and debris flow data). One of the
main differences in modeling approaches relates to the number of dimensions
the model resolves: 0D, 1D, 2D, or 3D (figure 2.3). They may use similar equations
and methods internally but treat the whole problem of water movement very
differently. These modeling approaches are feasible at different spatial scales and
are defined below.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 39

Figure 2.3 Decision Tree to Select Hydraulic Modeling Type for Flood Hazard Assessment

MODEL FEATURES MODEL SELECTION

Best suited where a very quick and simple flood hazard or risk assessment Is the flooding very simple, and can be
is required—typically used for analysis of simple flood processes where the adequately described in relation to a level
predominant factor in determining where inundation occurs is the water or volume?
level at a known location. An example would be coastal flooding where
the tide level determines the extent of inundation. YES NO

USE 0D 1D 2D 3D MODELING

Best suited to channel flow, flow within pipes or culverts, or flow within a Is flooding associated with a channel or drain
well-defined flow path such as a narrow floodplain or valley floor. A simple with a well-defined narrow flow route?
model can be easily produced and will run very quickly with only a few
surveyed cross sections at the point of interest, or it can be developed over
a wide area with extensive channel survey, assuming that the channel is YES NO

uniform between cross sections.

USE 0D 1D 2D 3D MODELING

Best suited to flooding of wide, flat, poorly defined areas where any Is flooding widely distributed across a floodplain
in-channel flow is negligible in determining flood extent. This modeling or with poorly defined flow routes?
approach is dependent on the quality of the digital terrain data available,
but with sufficiently high resolution, it can accurately capture the river
channels as well. It can be slow to run over large areas but is very simple YES NO

and quick to set up.

USE 0D 1D 2D 3D MODELING

Combining 1D and 2D modeling provides the best of both. It allows better Is flooding caused by a combination of
distribution of flow across floodplains and particularly urban settings while ill-defined overland flow routes and well-defined
capturing the detail of channels, drains, and other flow structures. It can be channels?
more complicated and time-consuming to set up and run, and it requires
both an accurate DTM and local ground survey data. YES NO

USE 0D 1D 2D 3D MODELING

Normally, 3D modeling is only required for the detailed design stage of a Is the assessment for a detailed design around a
project and would be focused on a specific structure or feature (for example, complex structure or set of flow conditions?
a bridge, lock, sluice gates, and so on) that affects flow. The process requires
a detailed survey of all relevant aspects of the problem; can be difficult, YES

time-consuming, and costly to set up; and may require specialists’ skills.
It is therefore not normally recommended for flood hazard modeling.
USE 0D 1D 2D 3D MODELING NO

Note: DTM = digital terrain model; 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional;

0D = zero-dimensional.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 40

Zero dimensions (0D). These simple (point or box) models look at volumes of
water or relative water levels—for example, a geographic information system (GIS)
approach to flood spreading according to sea level. This approach—although
not, strictly speaking, hydraulic modeling—has a valuable place in quick analysis
to provide preliminary or indicative results. The spatial scale of these models can
be anything from a local assessment up to thousands of kilometers (regional to
continental scale). Adequate GIS tools should be used to make sure that no floods
are predicted in terrain depressions that are not connected to the source and to
ensure the model also considers the duration of the flood event and the likely flood
volume. For example, if a storm event lasts only a few hours, it may produce less
water than needed to flood the entire flood-prone area.

One dimension (1D). These numerical models calculate fluid movement in a single
dimension, normally within a channel or conduit, where the single dimension is
along the direction of the channel or conduit. The typical spatial scale of these
models can be very localized for engineering design up to hundreds of square
kilometers (urban to regional scale). The urban topography is captured through
storage nodes and channels in these types of models, relying on georeferenced,
surveyed channel and floodplain cross sections as a primary input.

Two dimensions (2D). These numerical models calculate fluid movement in two
dimensions, typically across a floodplain or land surface, where the two dimensions
of movement occur in any direction on the horizontal plane. The typical scale of
these models tends to be from tens of square kilometers up to several hundred
square kilometers (urban district to urban scale). These models use a two-
dimensional DTM as an important input, from which it creates a grid of computation
cells that use the ground level in each cell, and the relative ground levels in
surrounding cells, to determine the direction and velocity of water movement
across the land surface.

One and two dimensions (1D-2D): These numerical models combine the 1D and
2D approaches for the modeling domain. Channels and structures are generally
schematized as a 1D model, in which the flow direction is clearly in a single
dimension. Floodplains or urban areas where the flow direction is less obvious are
schematized in two dimensions.

In a 1D-2D approach, the 1D and 2D numerical models are coupled to ensure

consistency of flows and water levels in the entire modeling domain. Hence,
there is an exchange of flow between both models, and water can flow from the
channel into the floodplain and vice versa during a time-dependent simulation.
These models have the data and input requirements of both 1D and 2D models
described above.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 41

Three dimensions (3D): These complex numerical models capture fluid movement
in all three dimensions. This can be achieved in one of two ways: (1) as a series
of horizontal slices through the water depth, where each slice is treated as a 2D
model, but certain parameters or values are passed between each slice to represent
3D physics; or (2) as a truly 3D computational fluid dynamics approach that solves
sophisticated 3D equations, which can be used for very complex problems.

It is very unlikely that this approach will be needed in a Level 2 analysis; it is typically
used for modeling complex local hydraulic situations and is focused on a specific
structure or problem area. These models require a 3D digital representation of the
structure, all relevant data such as bathymetry and topography, and potentially very
large amounts of accurate detail.

Level 2 requirements: In general, a Level 2 analysis would require a 2D or a 1D-2D

combined modeling approach. A 1D approach can be appropriate, where the data
allow, for quick scans and sensitivity testing or scenario runs; when a large spatial
scale must be covered; or as a starting point for more detailed 2D modeling in a
Level 2 analysis. Three-dimensional modeling is generally not required or feasible
for urban flood modeling at Level 2.

2.3.2 1D Flood Modeling

Hydraulic modeling in one dimension (1D) is the traditional approach to flood

modeling and has been employed since before the advent of computers. The single
dimension refers to flow along the channel, and the assumption is that the average
flow along the channel can be estimated between two points—upstream and
downstream—along the channel or flow conduit (which could be a pipe or culvert)
using the St. Venant equations (figure 2.4). It assumes that the channel is uniform
or gradually varying along its length and that flow is averaged in depth—that is,
the variation of velocity along the channel with depth is averaged. This approach
works well where water flow is largely contained within a channel or a well-defined
topographic feature and where flow routes during flood events are well understood.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 42

Figure 2.4 Model of the St. Venant Equations in Practice for 1D Hydraulic Modeling

Upstream
cross section

Downstream
cross section
V

S
h

V = (referred to as u in the equation below) the average h = Water depth

water velocity between upstream and downstream
Q = Flow (usually in m3/s) between the upstream and
cross sections
downstream cross sections (Q = V x A)
S = (in the equation below referred to as So) the average
Sf = (also from the equation below) Friction slope, which is
bed slope between the cross sections
a unitless factor which relates the rate of energy lost
A = Average cross section area of the water flow along a given length of channel, mainly due to friction.

ST. VENANT EQUATIONS - CONSERVATION OF MASS AND MOMENTUM

∂A ∂Q ∂Q ∂ ∂h
+ =0 + (uQ) + gA −S0 +gASf = 0
∂t ∂x ∂t ∂x ∂x

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 43

One-dimensional modeling requires channel cross section data at sufficiently

frequent intervals that accurately reflect the shape and size of the channel
(figure 2.5). If out-of-bank flooding is to be simulated, cross sections will need to be
extended to include the floodplain as well, but again, the floodplain must be well
defined and relatively uniform (or at least gradually changing) between sections.
Cross sections can be linked to form a large river or drainage network, and because
the calculations can be carried out quickly, short model run times can be achieved
with rapid production of results. The quality of the data used will determine the
accuracy of the flood outputs, and the roughness is also an important parameter
that should be included in the analysis.

The topography of an urban environment can be included as storage nodes in

1D models—usually as a depth-volume relationship with controlled inflow and
outflow—to which rainfall can be added as a boundary condition. Such a storage
node approach is almost never detailed enough for a flood risk assessment and
therefore is mainly used for similar storage (flooding) upstream of the area of
interest to ensure inflows are correct downstream. One-dimensional modeling
also includes specific flow equations for structures such as weirs, culverts, bridges,
pumps, and sluice gates, which are well established and ensure accurate and stable
numerical computation of the flows and water levels.

Figure 2.5 Example of HEC-RAS 1D Flood Model

Fa
16.7 ll Riv
16.6 0.64
1 D HEC-RAS MODEL er
16.4
.

16.3
Cr

.04 .02 .03 16.3 0.48

t te

27.5
Bu

Upper Reach 16.2 Butte Cr.

0.39
26.0 0.32
15.9
CHANNEL
Elevation (m)

24.5 0.16 CROSS SECTION

15.8 15.7
23.0
15.6
21.5
Fa

Lower Reach
l lR

15.4
iv

20.0 15.3
er

30 45 60 75 20.0 105 120 15.1

Station (m) 15

Source: Adapted from training material, US Army Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS.

Note: HEC = Hydrologic Engineering Center; m = meters; RAS = River Analysis System (of HEC).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 44

2.3.3 2D Flood Modeling

A two-dimensional (2D) horizontal model, as the name implies, calculates water

movement in all directions within a horizontal plane. It calculates the portion of the
flow vector in both the “x” and “y” directions across the ground surface, resulting
in an estimate of the overall flow in any direction. The modeling process overlays
a representation of the ground surface in the form of a DTM onto a computation
grid, which takes the ground elevation from the DTM. Figure 2.6 shows a typical
arrangement. The DTM does not include features such as vegetation, parks,
buildings, and other man-made structures and therefore represents what is termed
the “bare earth.” Where these features are important, they can be added back into
the model in various ways using building footprint or urban forest and green parks
polygons or roughness—often referred to as friction factors—as additional layers
within the model. The quality of these underlying data is key to determining the
accuracy of the modeled flood outputs.

Figure 2.6 Typical 2D Flood Modeling

DTM captures details of the ground surface.

Vegetation, buildings, and other man-made
structures are removed.
Quality of the underlying data is key.

A 2D model overlays the DTM with a

computation grid, taking the ground levels
from the DTM.
The grid is not necessarily square or uniform.
Different modeling software use different cell
layouts from triangular to multiple sides and of
variable size and shape.
Model uses basic laws of physics to determine
where and how fast water moves across the
surface, using similar equations as 1D but
applied in two dimensions.

Typically each cell will have

ZV
V Velocity ZC = Elevation at cell
center for storage;
ZU = Right cell elevation
ZU for flows to right; and
Water level
Calculation point ZC ZV = Top cell elevation for
HEC-RAS approach allowing variable grid
U Velocity flows to top.

Note: DTM = digital terrain model; HEC = Hydrologic Engineering Center;

RAS = River Analysis System; 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 45

In many modern modeling software packages, the computational grid of

2D models is not necessarily always square or uniform. This can allow for smaller
cells that more accurately capture the underlying topography or cells that align
better with the movement of the water in areas where this may be important.
Different modeling software uses different cell layouts, from triangular to multiple
sides and in variable sizes and shapes. The model uses basic laws of physics
to determine where and how fast water moves across the surface, using similar
equations as 1D models but applied in two perpendicular dimensions.

Recent developments in modeling software allow high-resolution subgrids within

each computation cell that can significantly improve performance. This feature
enables the overall flow calculation to be run on a large grid cell, but each
individual cell can have a precalculated depth-volume relationship based on
the detailed topography within the cell, and a precalculated depth-discharge
relationship along the cell boundary, again based on the detailed topography
along the boundary that more accurately reflects the flows between each cell of
the model.

2.3.4 Comparing 1D and 2D Modeling

Approaches

Figure 2.7 compares the ways in which a 1D model and a 5-meter-resolution

2D model might represent a 20-meter-wide channel. The 1D model (green line)
is constructed from surveyed cross sections, and the 2D model (orange line)
is constructed with 5-meter-resolution cells (indicated by short red horizontal
lines). At 5 meters’ resolution, the 2D model captures the shape of the channel
reasonably well. However, most remote sensing processes do not see through
water, so the depth of the channel is often underestimated and may need additional
processing or field data collection.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 46

Figure 2.7 Comparison of 1D and 2D Models in Capturing Flow Area of a 20-Meter-Wide Channel
at 5-Meter Resolution

20m wide river

Simulated channel 5m cell size

dimension within a within the model
2D model

Actual channel
cross section

Blue area shows the flow area Orange area shows the flow area
represented by a 1D model represented by a 2D model

~
In this situation flow areas
are relatively comparable

Figure 2.8 compares how a 1D model and a 30-meter-resolution 2D model might

represent the same 20-meter-wide channel. Again, the 1D model is constructed
from surveyed cross sections (green line). The 2D model (orange line) is constructed
with 30-meter-resolution cells (short red horizontal lines). At a 30-meter resolution,
the 2D model may only capture the shape of the channel as a single lowered cell.
The resulting channel shape is a much cruder representation within the 2D model.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 47

Figure 2.8 Comparison of 1D and 2D Models in Capturing Flow Area of a 20-Meter-Wide Channel
at 30-Meter Resolution

20m wide river

Simulated channel 30m cell size

dimension within within the model
a 2D model
Actual channel
cross section

1D model representation of the channel

2D model representation of the channel

In this situation, there is clearly a significant difference, but channel flow areas are
still likely to be reasonably similar. Out-of-bank flow (flooding) would begin at
~ approximately the same point and would probably result in similar flood extent
(assuming other factors such as friction are comparable).

Table 2.2 offers a side-by-side comparison. In general, a Level 2 analysis would

require a 2D or a 1D-2D combined modeling approach. A high-resolution accurate
DTM, such as laser imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR), should contain
most of the features that dominate flood flows, assuming the multitude of small
urban drains will already be full. A 2D-only model will often suffice—an approach
successfully used in many cities around the world, such as in Kampala, Uganda,
with 0.5-meter LiDAR (Rentschler et al. 2019).

Larger drains and channels act in two distinct ways: (1) as floodwater conveyance,
typically in areas with more gradient; and (2) as floodwater storage, typically in flat,
poorly drained areas. Where the channels’ conveyance capacity is an important
aspect of the drainage system, it may be necessary for 1D model elements. Where
storage capacity or overland flow routes are more critical, it is likely that a 2D-only
model will be better. Less accurate DTMs will require more effort to capture and
incorporate the hydraulically important features such as channels, culverts, bridges,
and the like, and may require manual correction or adjustment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 48

An additional feature of a 2D model is that although it may not reflect the channel
cross section as accurately as a surveyed cross section, it does capture any change
in channel shape or size along its full length. With a 1D model, the channel shape
and size are only captured at cross sections—often several hundred meters
apart—with the assumption that the channel remains constant (or varies linearly)
in between.

Table 2.2 1D versus 2D Modeling Approaches

ASPECT 1D HYDRAULIC MODELING 2D HYDRAULIC MODELING

Best suited for in-channel flows or flows Best suited for overland and flood flows due to
through drains, culverts, or other man-made coastal, riverine, and pluvial flooding, allowing
structures. Can also be used for pluvial flood for direct application of rain on grid, with
Purpose simulations in urban environments if urban many 2D models including infiltration losses.
topography and urban runoff are schematized Open channel flows can be modeled in 2D if a
appropriately. DTM is available of sufficiently high resolution
and accuracy.

Model setup generally requires more expert Model setup is relatively straightforward; however,
knowledge than a 2D model because of the the additional work to adjust or reprocess a
schematization process (that is, the modeler poor-quality DTM can negate these benefits.
needs to determine flow paths in advance). A 2D model may require very small time steps,
Setup
There may be more instability issues with resulting in long computational time, and can be
multiple or complex compound channels, and subject to instabilities in steep topography.
the addition of lateral storage features may be
required to account for some situations.

1D modeling requires input of the topography 2D modeling requires an accurate DTM for the
using a DTM for each storage node to calculate entire study area. The quality of a 2D model and
Topography floodplain storage. The quality of the 1D model its results are strongly dependent on the accuracy
is less sensitive to the accuracy of the DTM and resolution of the DTM.
but more dependent on the accuracy of the
manual survey.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 49

ASPECT 1D HYDRAULIC MODELING 2D HYDRAULIC MODELING

1D modeling requires cross section data for Watercourse channels may be quite accurately
the watercourses being modeled—typically represented by the 2D grid if the resolution is
every 50 meters for urban settings or more sufficiently fine (that is, more than 3 cells/channel
than 200 meters for rural settings—and this width) and if the conveyance and storage of the
Bathymetry of
bathymetric data can be costly and time- channel or drain can be reasonably accurately
watercourses
consuming to collect. The quality of the represented by a 2D model. This is less accurate
1D model is very dependent on the quality of than a surveyed 1D cross section at that location
these data. but avoids the uncertainty in the interpolation
carried out between measured cross sections.

Boundary conditions are normally a prederived Boundary conditions can be the same as in
flow or level hydrograph applied at upstream 1D modeling but can often include direct rainfall
Boundary boundaries, and downstream boundaries across the model surface, allowing for a more
conditions are usually a water level, discharge rating, or detailed assessment of surface-water flooding.
extraction flow. Rainfall can be imposed at
storage nodes thoughout the domain.

1D modeling is very suitable for sensitivity Sensitivity testing and scenario runs are generally
Sensitivity or testing and doing a large range of scenario more limited because of the higher computational
scenario runs runs to test a wide variety of alternatives due to demands of 2D runs.
low computational demand.

Model outputs are point water levels or water Model outputs are normally gridded water levels
volumes, and they generally need further and often water velocity, allowing for instant
Outputs intermediate processing steps to display as a mapping of flood hazard with no intermediate
flood map. This requires interpolation of the processing steps.
output water levels across a DTM surface.

Note: DTM = digital terrain model; 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 50

2.3.5 Combined 1D and 2D Approach

This approach generally offers the best of both types of modeling: potentially more
accurate channel definition; ability to include flow control structures, pipes, culverts,
bridges, and so on; and better overland flow representation. This type of modeling,
however, is more complex with significant data requirements (including channel
cross sections as well as a DTM) and will take longer to develop.

Linking 1D and 2D domains is done in a variety of ways, with potentially significant

differing results (figure 2.9). The vertical alignment between the 1D cross sections
and the 2D grid (usually from the DTM) is critical and must use a common datum
and align exactly because the transfer of water between the channel and floodplain
and vice versa assumes that the channel banks in the 1D and 2D elements of the
model are at the same elevation. The interface between 1D and 2D domains does
not usually include the momentum term, which can result in a significant error in
water transfer from one to the other. However, if carried out correctly with the right
data, this approach is likely to give the best overall results.

Figure 2.9 Schematization of a Typical Linked 1D-2D Hydraulic Model

Source: Gilles et al. 2012. ©MDPI. Reproduced under Creative Commons license CC-BY.

Note: 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 51

2.3.6 Modeling Software

Modeling software would normally be selected by the consulting firm carrying out
the work. Many consultants have their preferred software or may have developed
their own in-house software for modeling. Benchmarking has shown that as long
as the models use recognized implementations of standard equations and are
developed by a specialist familiar with that specific modeling software, the results
are likely to be very similar.

Well-known software packages include TUFLOW, FLO-2D, Delft3D, HEC-RAS,

InfoWorks ICM, MIKE, SOBEK, SWMM, and TELEMAC. Where reuse of models
or further development is required, free and open modeling software could be
proposed at the tender stage, offering the advantage of either contracted or open
sourcing of ongoing support and maintenance.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 52

BOX 2.1 Raised Walkways in Doe Community of Monrovia, Liberia, 2018

The Role of Different

Flood Hazards in a
Level 2 Flood Risk
Assessment in Greater
Monrovia, Liberia

A well-informed project design to reduce

flood risk in an urban environment
warrants a good understanding of the
role and contribution of different flood
hazard mechanisms to the overall risk
profile. These insights are necessary
to prioritize the type of interventions
and also define design target levels for
the structural interventions. A Level 2
assessment was therefore carried out
to define a flood risk profile of Greater
Monrovia with detailed hydrological and Source: Russell et al. 2021b. © World Bank.
hydraulic analysis (Russell et al. 2021b).

Monrovia—Liberia’s capital city, with A detailed two-dimensional (2D) informed the project design of the
around 1.5 million inhabitants—has modeling exercise with detailed World Bank’s Liberia Urban Resilience
regular floods in both housing and topography data of the entire urban Project.a This project specifically
market areas, disrupting activities such area has shown that direct rainfall targets both current and future climate
as education, health care, and traffic to flooding (“pluvial” flooding) is the most change risks. Informed by the Level
and from the city center and port area. It significant flood mechanism, resulting in 2 assessment, the project focuses on
has low-lying, relatively flat topography the highest risk. The 2021 analysis also urban drainage improvements to reduce
with a complex system of waterbodies showed that the main contribution to pluvial flood risk in targeted areas of
surrounding the city, bordered by the pluvial risk occurs during frequent Greater Monrovia.
the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the events (return periods of less than 10
Mesurado River to the east, and the years). The most severe river flooding a. For more details, see the Liberia
Saint Paul River to the north, which drain (“fluvial” flooding) affects larger areas Urban Resilience Project (P169718)
rainfall from the catchments in Liberia of the city given the low-lying nature website: https://projects.worldbank.
and partly in Guinea to the ocean. of the land, but this starts to become org/en/projects-operations/project-
substantial only for relatively infrequent detail/P169718.
Monrovia is also one of the wettest events (return periods of 50 years or
cities in the world. The average annual more). Direct coastal flooding from the
rainfall is 5,250 millimeters, with June Atlantic Ocean is limited. However, all
and September averaging in excess of flood hazards will become worse in the
1,000 millimeters and July and August future because of climate change effects
averaging in excess of 800 millimeters. with increasing rainfall intensity and sea
The highest recorded daily rainfall level rise.
for Monrovia is 435 millimeters, while
rainstorms exceeding 100 millimeters in These findings, from the “Flood
a day are not uncommon. Risk Profile for Greater Monrovia”
(Russell et al. 2021a, 2021b), have

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 53

2.4
TERRAIN AND GEOMETRY
DATA

2.4.1 Digital Terrain Models

The modeling grid will be based on a DTM for the study area (figure 2.10), which
provides the model with the terrain features and topography that determine
where water will flow. Typically, the horizontal resolution ranges from 90 meters
(Shuttle Radar Topography Mission [SRTM] or Multi-Error-Removed Improved-
Terrain [MERIT]) down to 0.25 meters or less (LiDAR and DTM derived from drone
imagery). In all of these products, the vertical resolution is typically 0.1 meters.
The accuracy of the vertical elevations, however, can largely vary between different
DTM products, from 10 meters or more to a few centimeters.

The DTM for the study area should be

■ Consistent across the entire area of interest and contain no steps or breaks
in elevation as these can create problems for flood modeling and will require
additional processing to remove;
■ Accurate in the vertical direction since topographic gradients govern flow
patterns—generally, with vertical accuracy around 1 meter at minimum and
preferably higher for a Level 2 assessment of an urban environment;
■ Able to resolve flat areas, especially floodplains and coastal areas, avoiding
contour data unless it is very high resolution (25 centimeters vertical
resolution or less); and
■ Consistent with some recognized national or international datum levels
and projections, which is particularly relevant (1) if DTMs from different
sources must be merged to provide the necessary coverage (to be avoided
if possible but sometimes necessary); or (2) if the model must tie in with a
coastal boundary.

DTMs based on LiDAR surveys generally provide the highest accuracy in both
horizontal and vertical directions. For a Level 1 or 2 assessment, however, other less
accurate options can be used. Satellite-derived DTMs with reasonable accuracy
and resolution (vertical accuracy of 1 meter or better is possible in combination
with sufficient ground control points) can be purchased and may suffice for a

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 54

city-level study, but they usually require manual editing to enforce a hydrologically
correct surface and drainage features. The freely available SRTM from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and similar sources such as MERIT
have a vertical accuracy of 10–16 meters, which is generally considered insufficient
for Level 2 flood modeling but may be suitable for Level 1 type assessments.

The DTM’s vertical resolution and accuracy is important because it is a limiting

factor in what can reasonably be expected in determining the characteristics of the
flood hazard(s) in the assessment. For example, coastal flood levels in storm- or
cyclone-prone areas typically increase by 0.3 meters to 1 meter when the return
period increases by a factor of 10. Future sea level rise scenarios are also often
in this same range. If the DTM has a coarse vertical resolution (for example, 0.5
meters) or is inaccurate (for example, 2 meters or more), then the extent and
depth on coastal flood hazard maps derived from it will be very uncertain. In
such a situation, a high-resolution DTM (0.1 meters or less) with high accuracy (for
example, 0.5 meters or less) is necessary to generate accurate hazard maps.

Figure 2.10 Difference between Selected DTMs for Mrauk-U, Myanmar, 2018

a. MERIT (90 meters) b. WorldDEM (12 meters)

0 500 1000 0 500 1000

m m m m m m

c. LiDAR (1 meter)

0 500 1000
m m m

Note: DTM = digital terrain model; LiDAR = light detection and ranging; MERIT = Multi-
Error-Removed Improved-Terrain; WorldDEM = World Digital Elevation Model.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 55

The vertical error of DTMs can be reduced with sufficient ground truthing and by
applying a vertical correction. However, this requires additional ground surveys
using high-accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) survey equipment. Land
maps are also sometimes available with detailed levels from traditional land
surveying, and although these tend to be for relatively small areas, they may be
preferable to satellite-based data or used in combination.

Certainty of the DTM’s exact vertical datum is very important. Notably, some
satellite-derived data (for example, SRTM) give levels above mean sea level that
are rarely well connected to a local datum. Others will have their own—or in some
cases a user-specified—datum. Verification of the vertical datum is therefore
extremely important before the DTM is applied.

Possible sources for DTMs are found in table 2.3. DTM data can be one of the
largest costs of a modeling exercise, but the DTM’s quality and resolution are
among the biggest influences on the model’s accuracy. Thus, problems with the
DTM are among the most common reasons for poorer than expected results
or project overrun. For example, natural and man-made features—small rivers,
channels, bridge constrictions, and drainage systems—may be essential for flood
modeling but are not normally captured in the DTM. These may need manual or
semiautomated edits to include these into the DTM. Required data of these features
may be collected separately by performing bathymetric surveys or using design
drawings to estimate dimensions such as cross-sectional areas and elevations.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 56

Table 2.3 Potential DTM Data Sources for Flood Modeling

PRODUCT CREATION RESOLUTION VERTICAL MINIMUM PRICE PER km2b LEAD TIMEc
METHOD (horizontal, m) ACCURACY a
AOI ORDER
(m) (km²)

Drone-derived Photogrammetric 0.2 0.4 1 $ $ MM

DTM

Drone LiDAR Laser-derived 0.2 0.4 1 $ $ $ $ MMMM

Aircraft LiDAR Laser-derived 0.3 0.5 100 $ $ $ $ MMMM

Vricon-50cm Photogrammetric 0.5 3 1,000 $ $ – $ $ $ M / MMM

AW3D Photogrammetric 0.5-1-2 2 100 $ $ M / MMM

Enhanced

Elevation1 Photogrammetric 1 3 100 $ $ $ M / MMM

Advanced Photogrammetric 2-4-8 8 100 $ $ M / MMM

Elevation
Series

AW3D Photogrammetric 2.5 5 100 $ M

Standard

Elevation4 Photogrammetric 4 4 100 $ $ M / MMM

WorldDEM Radar-derived 12 4 100 $ M / MMM

Elevation30 Photogrammetric 30 10 500 $ M / MMM

PlanetDEM Radar-derived 30 10 100 $ $ M / MMM

MERIT Radar-derived 90 10 - Free Directly available

Source: World Bank.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 57

Note: AOI = area of interest; DEM = digital elevation model; DTM = digital terrain model;
km2 = square kilometers; LiDAR = light detection and ranging; m = meters; MERIT = Multi-
Error-Removed Improved-Terrain; AW3D = ALOS World three-dimensional (where ALOS =
Advanced Land Observing Satellite). - = not applicable.
a. Estimated relative accuracy without ground control points (GCPs).
b. The symbols represent the following: $ = US$1 to US$25; $$ = US$26 to US$100;
$$$ = US$100 to US$300; $$$$ = values greater than US$300. These prices are
estimates and will vary based on the area (square kilometers) purchased, with smaller
areas having the potential to be more expensive.
c. M = within 1 month; MM = 1–3 months; MMM 3–6 months; MMMM 6 months or
longer. These lead times for the satellite-derived products are based on when the data
exist or when the data do not exist.

2.4.2 Land Subsidence

Related to the topography of the urban environment, the role of land subsidence
must always be carefully assessed in a Level 2 urban flood assessment. Subsidence
of the subsoil can be a major factor in urban floods depending on the city context.
Jakarta is among the well-known examples of coastal cities where land subsidence
is much larger than sea level rise. Its subsidence rates exceed 10 centimeters per
year (see, for example, Asmadin, Siregar, and Jaya 2021).

Land subsidence can have natural (for example, consolidation of soft deposited
clays) or anthropogenic causes (such as groundwater extractions for drinking
water). Its effects can change over time and in space considerably. Unfortunately,
insights regarding the temporal and spatial behavior of land subsidence are
generally scarce for city environments.

If subsidence is important for the urban environment under consideration, it should

be factored into the flood hazard modeling approach. This can be done by either
lowering the elevation of the DTM or including this subsidence in the water level
boundaries for future conditions (such as sea level conditions).

Possible sources of information about subsidence include detailed local records

of the national geodetic survey network. Today, detailed remote-sensing data can
also provide insight into subsidence rates. The Interferometric Synthetic Aperture
Radar (InSAR) technique is specifically appropriate for measuring subsidence
over widespread areas with high spatial resolution. An example of application
of this technique for generating subsidence information in different cities across
the world can be found in a recent European Space Agency technical report
(Foumelis 2020).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 58

2.4.3 Friction

Friction is fundamental in controlling how fast water will flow over a surface.
This parameter therefore determines the depth and extent of flooding a model
will predict as well as the speed at which the simulated flood wave travels down a
watercourse or across a floodplain, and it will affect the rate of onset and duration
of flooding. “The majority of the numerical flood simulation models [1D or 2D]
adopt semi-empirical equations for friction derived in the 19th century, such as
the Manning, Chézy, or Darcy-Weisbach friction factor” (Bellos, Nalbantis, and
Tsakiris 2018, 1). It should be noted that the Chézy formula does not vary with
water depth—and, with large inundation, depths can lead to substantial errors
and therefore the formula is not recommended for flood hazards. The effect of
friction on water movement across a surface, often referred to as the “roughness
coefficient or factor,” is dependent on the channel material or ground surface
and the vegetation or other obstacles to flow, such as rocks or boulders that
create turbulence.

The roughness coefficient required by the model can be defined using widely
available tables with descriptions of bedform or example photographs. Friction
can vary considerably across floodplains and along surface-water flow routes,
particularly in urban settings where roads and paved areas may provide low
resistance to flow, while heavily vegetated gardens and parks may have high
roughness coefficient values. Two-dimensional models often allow land use data
as a GIS layer to be used as a proxy for friction. This can be a critical dataset for
city-scale flood modeling.

Setting up roughness coefficient values in a 1D model can be similarly automated.

However, a 1D model normally offers less flexibility for varying the roughness
coefficient. Different roughness coefficient values can be used along the cross
section to reflect different bed or floodplain material, but they are assumed to be
constant or to vary linearly between cross sections. Therefore, it is more normal for
these factors to be manually entered.

Photo 2.1 shows typical estimates for Manning’s “n”—the most commonly used
factor—for a river channel and floodplain.2 It should be noted the friction is
proportional to the square of Manning’s “n,” so a doubling of the n-value equates
to a four times larger friction, everything else equal. These values would be applied
along the section of the cross section that represents that particular part of
the channel.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 59

Friction also changes with depth, so shallow overland flow will result in higher
friction values than deep flow over the same terrain. Not all models take this into
account, but increasingly some do by providing an option for entering an n-value
that varies with depth (usually as a depth/n value curve).

Photo 2.1 Estimating Manning’s “n”

Source: Curt Carnemark / World Bank.

Note: Manning’s “n” is a coefficient that represents the roughness or friction applied to
the flow by the channel. Here, the n-value of 0.025 represents a relatively low friction of
the channel, and the n-value of 0.050 a relative quadrupling of friction, as represented by
the surface obstacles to flow such as rocks and boulders in the floodplain.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 60

2.4.4 Building Footprints

Buildings and solid structures such as walled compounds or enclosures affect flow
paths within an urban environment, and through the process of being flooded, they
can provide floodwater storage that, in turn, may change flooding in surrounding
areas. It may, therefore, be necessary to include these features in the model in
some way. This is normally accomplished within the 2D domain and can be done in
several ways.

The simplest way may be to process the DTM that forms the basis of the 2D model
in such a way that buildings and solid structures are retained. This may be
reasonably accurate with a high-resolution model, but by creating a solid block,
it does not account for water entering the buildings and the possible storage or
attenuation of water within large areas of the city.

An alternative is to create what are sometimes termed “stubby buildings,” where

the footprint of the building is raised by a set amount, typically 300 millimeters,
in the model DTM. This is normally done through GIS processing using the
building footprint polygon for each building (which may be available through
OpenStreetMap), or if the DTM has been developed using photogrammetric
methods, by adding the building back into the processed DTM. This allows water
to enter the building area after it reaches a certain depth. Using this method, it is
common practice to use the building footprint polygons within the hydraulic model
to increase the roughness coefficient (normally Manning’s “n”) within the building
to a very high value, which allows water to enter but does not allow normal flow
through the buildings.

Other methods for high-resolution models include imposing the building walls
into the model and either allowing inflow through a gap in the wall or through a
very high roughness coefficient again, representing porosity. Whatever process is
proposed, it needs to be proportional to the benefit of the increased accuracy and
must be appropriate to the scale of the modeling exercise.

Other solid and elevated structures (like elevated highways, railroads, or

embankments of large drainage canals) must also be checked because these
may substantially affect flow patterns in urban environments. For these structures,
a similar approach can be adopted as for buildings. Openings in these solid
structures (for example, large viaducts or overpasses) must be included because
these can be important water exchange pathways.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 61

2.4.5 Urban Drainage Systems

Natural and man-made water infrastructure—channels, rivers, ponds, wetlands,

culverts, bridges, and the like—can be essential for modeling urban floods but
are not usually captured in the DTM. Underground stormwater and sewage pipe
systems are by default not available in a terrain model. Urban drainage systems,
especially in older cities and settlements, can include systems and structures from
several different eras of a city’s development, the original purpose of which may
now be lost or unknown. Examples could include ancient or modern irrigation
systems, culverted rivers, mill streams (leats), fish ponds, reservoirs, and cisterns.
More recent changes may also have occurred in how surface water is managed—
for example, as peri-urban areas become urbanized or where sustainable drainage
systems are adopted into design practices.

It is usually not necessary to include the full urban drainage system within a model
for a Level 2 analysis. For each context, it is advisable to initially screen which
elements of the urban drainage system must be modeled explicitly and which
parts can be either neglected or included in a such a way that the overall effect
is correctly included. Data collection of drainage systems and other relevant
infrastructure is often time-consuming and costly. Use of data from earlier studies,
surveys, and the like, or a rapid assessment as part of the project, can provide
a viable option to avoid or limit a detailed survey. A single photograph of the
upstream face of a bridge or culvert (with a measuring staff included to provide
scale) can often provide most if not all of the data required.

Where many small drains exist, particularly subsurface or roadside drains, it is

usually possible to implement modeling techniques that can simulate the overall
drainage effect without having to include all of the detail, which may not exist or
would be costly to collect. This simulation can take the form of removal of a certain
percentage of the amount of rainfall or inflow to account for the water likely to be
retained within the drains and will therefore not result in surface-water flooding.

The importance of the existing natural and man-made infrastructure, whether

aboveground or underground, depends very much on the extent or capacity
of the system as well as the type of flooding—for example, a coastal flood
overwhelming the city, as opposed to a localized pluvial flood where insufficient
drainage is the main cause. Also, during large flood events, these systems and their
management are often relatively insignificant as they will be overwhelmed by the
floodwater, and in reality, their design or condition means they have little influence
on the depth, location, and extent of flooding and can usually be ignored in a
city-scale assessment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 62

However, there may be some instances or locations within a city where the local
drainage can be significant in determining flood hazard and risk. In these instances,
more detailed Level 3 modeling may be required to achieve sufficient confidence
in specific areas of the assessment. If this is known in advance, Level 3 modeling
can be incorporated as part of the overall citywide Level 2 assessment. But if the
need comes to light only after the Level 2 assessment, the Level 3 modeling may be
required as either an add-on to the assessment or as a separate study to be carried
out as part of the feasibility and cost-benefit analysis before design.

Where significant asset data collection is required, this may contribute

additional benefits beyond the modeling study. For example, asset surveys using
georeferencing data to capture the location, dimensions, materials, and conditions
of assets can be used by the municipality or other competent authority to plan
maintenance, rehabilitation, or expansion of drainage systems.

modeling the flood hazard for a city. The flood hazard affecting the area
BOX 2.2 The purpose of the study was to support was relatively complex, with a mix
the development of a prioritized flood of tidal influence and extensive
Selection of a Flood risk management investment plan pluvial inundation, over the very flat
Hazard Modeling for the city and surrounding areas. It and low-lying coastal plain where
Approach for Greater therefore was important to understand Paramaribo lies on the banks of the
Paramaribo, Suriname the main flood issues and dynamics of tidally influenced Suriname River. The
the flooding, as well as how the various city is drained by a complex network of
The strategic flood risk assessment sources and types of flooding affected canals, which drain mainly either to the
carried out for Greater Paramaribo, the city and its occupants. Other factors river, the coast, or into the Saramacca
the capital city of Suriname, provides a that determined the scale and depth of Canal, which runs from east to west
good example of the decision process, the study were the available data, the through the southern portion of the city.
choices, and compromises that must budget, and the time frame, which was a
be made in selecting an approach to little under a year.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 63

Saramacca Canal in Paramaribo, Suriname, 2017 flooding. However, this requires accurate
channel bathymetry (cross sections)
survey and processing, which can
be a very time-consuming and costly
process. In the case of Paramaribo,
it was decided for both practical and
technical reasons that a 2D-only model
using a hydraulically corrected DTM (that
is, the canals were artificially carved into
the DTM surface) could reflect the canals
sufficiently well to achieve the purpose
of the study.

The modeling assessment provided

the study with a tool that enabled
quantified, risk-based testing of various
mitigation options, including canal
Source: © Scott Ferguson / World Bank.
improvement works, additional pumped
discharge at the coast, improvements
As is often the case, the availability of a useful role in preliminary flood hazard to the Saramacca Canal, and coastal
rainfall records of sufficient length for assessment, particularly when large defense works.
statistical analysis was limited; they rivers are involved, they do not provide
consisted mostly of daily totals, collected the necessary resolution for city-level The study has successfully led to a
by the Suriname Meteorological Service studies where the detailed flow paths are project—the World Bank’s Saramacca
using manually read storage gauges. critical. Because of limitations in budget Canal System Rehabilitation Projectb—
While extremely valuable, these daily and time, a compromise between the that aims to reduce flood risks by
totals do not provide the detailed best available DTM captured using laser upgrading critical drainage infrastructure
resolution of intense bursts of heavy imaging, detection, and ranging (LiDAR) of the canal and other secondary and
rainfall that is often key in understanding and the low-resolution satellite-derived tertiary systems, optimizing the use and
urban flooding. However, a small data was agreed upon, and the Airbus maintenance of the canal (providing
number of automatic rain gauges with WorldDEM 12-meter resolution data additional navigation improvements),
a few years of records provided some was purchased. and updating norms and guidelines for
evidence of critical storm duration drainage management, among others.
for frequent events and a means of The extensive network of canals that
disaggregating the daily records into help drain the city during flood events a. A “design storm” refers to a
critical-duration design storms.a are important in two ways: they provide hypothetical depth of rainfall that
storage for the floodwater during an occurs at a stated return period,
An additional factor was the availability event, and they improve conveyance of duration, and timing of distribution,
of a digital terrain model (DTM), floodwater away from vulnerable areas. based on an area’s historical rainfall
which is essential for a citywide flood A key and sometimes difficult decision records. For further definition, see
modeling exercise. Although freely regarding the modeling method is how the glossary.
available DTMs—such as the National to best to represent channels and canals b. For more details, see the Saramacca
Aeronautics and Space Administration and their influence on drainage. The Canal System Rehabilitation Project
(NASA) Shuttle Radar Topography best way, particularly in a low-lying, flat (P165973) website:
Mission (STRM) data or, more recently, area such as Paramaribo, is a combined https://projects.worldbank.org/en/
the improved Multi-Error-Removed 1D-2D hydraulic model that captures projects-operations/project-detail/
Improved-Terrain (MERIT) data—have both the channel flow and the overland P165973.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 64

2.5
CALIBRATION AND
VALIDATION

Once the hydrological analysis and hydraulic models have been set up and
appropriate boundary conditions have been established, the flood hazard model
must be calibrated and validated. A strategy for “calibration” (the use of recorded
data to define model parameters) and “validation” (the use of recorded data to
check model validity) of the flood hazard modeling is key to obtaining credible
hazard maps and to understanding potential weaknesses and uncertainty. Different
sources of calibration or validation data for flood hazard models are

■ Hydrometeorological data: records of water levels, river discharge, and

so on;
■ Flood depth or water marks: observed high water levels following an event;
■ Community surveys: not only locations and depth but also indications of
frequency, flood duration, timing of arrival, and so on;
■ Satellite information (such as Copernicus): useful to define the flood extent
but challenging for urban environments;
■ Online information: media reports and social media information such as
FloodTags (weather impact monitoring using social media) with event-
specific information;
■ Disaster databases: disaggregated records of historical damages and losses
(such as DesInventar and EM-DAT);3 and
■ Post disaster needs assessments (PDNAs): assessments carried out after
major disasters to build an accurate understanding of the events and their
impacts and develop a prioritized medium- to long-term plan for recovery
and future mitigation. A PDNA is normally conducted as soon as possible
after the event to capture as much data as possible before they are lost
or forgotten.

It is important to recognize that all observational and modeled data from hindcast
models used in flood hazard modeling have their limitations that affect how these
data can be used for modeling, calibration, and validation. For example, floodwater
marks at exposed locations often include the effect of short waves on top of the
still water level, whereas these waves are not always included in large-scale flood
hazard modeling. Thus, a direct comparison between these observations and the

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 65

model output is only useful if this effect is accounted for. Another issue could be
that the hindcast meteorological data used for modeling input data do not capture
small-scale variations in the local weather conditions, and the modeling input is
therefore not directly comparable with observational data from one location in the
area of interest. These issues in both the observational and modeled data must be
identified and understood when modeling outputs are compared to observations.

Generally speaking, the amount of calibration or validation data for flood hazard
mapping is limited because of the lack of a well-functioning water monitoring
system in many countries. Therefore, collecting secondary information in data-
poor environments is always recommended, and it requires creativity in combining
different primary and secondary data sources to check the modeling results. Using
common sense to review the final results—by checking affected populations for
very frequent events—is important to arriving at realistic results.

2.6
IMPORTANCE OF
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Given the significant level of uncertainty within the overall modeling and analysis
process, it is important to consider the possible sources and consequences of
these uncertainties and how they might influence any decisions made based on
the results. One relatively simple and common approach is to carry out a sensitivity
analysis to understand the contribution of different factors to the total uncertainty.
This analysis investigates the key parameters or input variables of the model by
systematically varying each in turn over a range of possible values. The range will
usually include unlikely extreme values as well as more realistic values that may be
close to the actual selected values.

The purpose of the assessment is to see the effect that each parameter or input
variable has on the outcome and how sensitive the outcome is to a particular
parameter or input. It is important to note that any given percentage change in
one part of the system (that is, in input variable or a modeling parameter) is unlikely
to have the same percentage change in the output for any of the flood scenarios
investigated. Carrying out this analysis helps pinpoint the significant sources of

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 66

uncertainty within the process, allowing appropriate actions to be taken to reduce

the uncertainty or to recognize the likely scale of the uncertainty and incorporate
that uncertainty into the decision-making process.

A simple example could be where there is only limited rainfall data available for
a study, resulting in a large uncertainty around the design event scale and return
periods. Running the model multiple times—with perhaps up to plus or minus
50 percent of the estimated event rainfall—will show how much of an impact could
result from making an incorrect estimate or assumption about the rainfall. It may
also highlight any notable nonlinear responses these types of systems often exhibit,
where a change in the input does not necessarily result in a similar change in the
output—in this example, the flood extent. In reality, the outline of flooding might be
quite constrained up to a certain rainfall total, but above a certain value, the flood
extent may become much larger in response to a relatively small increase in rainfall.
Understanding this and knowing the scale of event where this nonlinearity might
appear could be very important when interpreting the model results, revealing where
uncertainty might be most significant and perhaps where it is worth investing more
effort in improving the confidence in the model parameter or input variable.

There are many parts of the assessment where sensitivity analysis could be
carried out, but the selection of parameters or variables will need to depend on
some local knowledge as well as professional judgment to determine where the
most significant uncertainties lie. Common parameters besides rainfall that would
normally be subject to sensitivity analysis for the flood modeling process would
include: (1) Mannings “n” (the model friction coefficient), which is often quite
subjective and often more spatially variable than the model usually allows; and
(2) infiltration rates that depend on a number of factors such as soil type and land
cover and is at best an average over any area.

Further sensitivity analysis would often be carried out at other stages of the overall
risk assessment process, investigating the impact of uncertainty in both the
exposure and the vulnerability factors.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 67

2.7
FLOOD HAZARD
SIMULATION –
SCENARIOS AND MAPPING

A well-calibrated and validated flood model is a useful tool for investigating

different scenarios and preparing flood hazard maps. It is necessary to establish
a baseline of flood scenarios against which mitigation options can be tested to
understand and deal with flood risk both now and in the future and assess the
benefits of these possible mitigation solutions. This baseline will consist of the range
of possible events and impacts that could occur, some more likely than others that
represent the current situation.

There is often significant uncertainty in the future scenarios, which must

be recognized throughout the entire flood hazard and risk assessment
(see, for example, Hallegatte et al. 2012) and quantified where possible.
The future scenarios should include, as a minimum, a range of event severity,
relevant climate change factors, subsidence, urban growth, and land use
change. It is likely that not all of these, and potentially others, will be equally
significant and may be assessed in a sensitivity analysis, while others are more
relevant and will require more in-depth analysis. By analyzing these scenarios
and quantifying the impacts through some form of modeling, a baseline
envelope of potential realities can be developed, which, although uncertain,
will provide a basis for making or prioritizing difficult management choices.

Generally, a range of return periods is selected in a Level 2 assignment to

define the potential hazard for the baseline and the future scenarios (that is, a
“semi-probabilistic approach”; see also the earlier “Flood Hazard Probabilistic
Assessment” section). It is important to note that low return periods (such as one
or two years) can contribute significantly to the overall risk because these floods
occur most frequently. However, these small events are likely to contain the most
uncertainty because of the lack of resolution within the model. For example,
minor errors in the DTM could make the difference between relatively shallow
but frequent flooding occurring or not. Extra care should therefore be taken to
ensure these events are as accurately reflected as reasonably possible. High
return periods of 100 years or 250 years are also necessary to include the impact

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 68

of unlikely but potentially catastrophic events. These extremes are also prone to
large errors because of lack of historical data and difficulties in obtaining accurate
measurements. Where the impact of an extreme event is thought to be potentially
catastrophic, as in a dam breach, it is normal to consider very unlikely but still
possible events—that is, up to a 1,000-year event or even higher.

Future scenarios will always be required as part of a Level 2 assessment, including

potential changes not only in the physical system (for example, sea level rise,
subsidence, and so on) but also in the urban context (such as urban growth and
land use change scenarios). A sufficiently long time horizon must be adopted
(for example, 25 or 50 years) for these future scenarios because most interventions,
particularly structural interventions, are typically built to last for decades. Global
climate models can provide an indication of the likely direction and extent of
changes at these time scales.

Those developing flood risk solutions need to account for the range of changes
in key parameters derived from projections from more than one climate model.
The World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal allows for this.4 Selection of
the most important variables for flood risk is important. For example, selecting a
rainfall change with a 50-year return period will be more informative than looking
at the seasonal rainfall total change, though both variables may be useful. In certain
situations, dichotomies can exist; for example, annual rainfall may be expected to
decrease in a certain location, but because of higher temperatures, the intensity of
rainfall during storms may increase.

Finally, it is important to ensure that the presentation and visualization of flood

hazard data are carefully considered to allow nonspecialists and decision-makers
as well as technical experts to understand the information contained within the
analytical flood hazard results. Maps of the maximum flood or time-dependent
animations of flood scenarios are not only indispensable tools for supporting
discussion among experts but also communication tools for engagement with the
wider group of stakeholders. The contents, scale, and color schemes need to be
tailored to the specific audience and discussion topic within the assignment for
which these visualizations are used.

Often, flood depth maps are widely used to show the severity of the flooding. But in
certain situations, flood velocity maps can be useful (for example, in hilly urban
environments) to identify areas with dangerously high flow velocity. Also, flood
propagation maps showing the time of flood arrival can be useful to evaluate the
potential for emergency measures. Scale and color schemes must also be defined

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 69

with care because these could also lead to misinterpretation, especially since
specific colors may have different interpretations. Good practices from the flood
hazard mapping within the framework of the EU Directive 2007/60/EC, “on the
Assessment and Management of Flood Risks” (EU 2007), may provide inspiration
for thinking carefully about visualizations that convey the right message to the
targeted audience (Martini and Loats 2007).

2.8
FLOOD HAZARD
PROBABILISTIC
ASSESSMENT

As outlined in chapter 1, a full probabilistic approach in a hazard analysis is not

commonly used in a Level 2 assessment, but this approach can provide several
benefits. A brief synopsis is provided here of what a full probabilistic approach
for flood hazard modeling entails and the kinds of outputs and information
such an analysis may generate. Analyzing the flood hazard and the impacts as
well as the benefits of potential measures—based on a lengthy synthetic time
series of genuinely potential weather or tides, for example, rather than on a
small set (typically around six to eight) of artificial design events—will generally
result in a much more robust risk assessment and options appraisal. Because
such an approach is generally more time-consuming and also (much) more
computer-intensive, the added value of a full probabilistic assessment for a
Level 2 assignment must be weighed carefully to establish an efficient but still
robust modeling approach.

A full probabilistic assessment generally requires synthetic time series (say, 10,000
years) of conditions of the relevant flood sources and state conditions (such as
rainfall, tide levels, and antecedent soil moisture conditions). Because 10,000 years
of climate or flood data clearly do not exist, time series analysis methods like Monte
Carlo simulation or numerical integration are used to develop the input data. This
synthetic record will include the spatial as well as temporal variation of all conditions
that could result in flooding, such as combinations of different parts of tides;

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 70

long-duration, low-intensity rainfall; high-intensity events; seasonal fluctuations

in groundwater, river levels, and soil moisture content; and so on. The detailed
methodology for this process in this type of assessment is less well established than
the more traditional approach and will vary depending on the supplier’s expertise
and knowledge. When considering this approach, it may be more effective to
specify the outcomes than to be too prescriptive about the methodology.

Probabilistic hazard event sets will typically contain 10,000 years or more of
synthetic events, but to capture the variability of all the relevant factors, it is
important that they be derived from recorded data that capture the broad
spectrum of variables and are of sufficient length to be statistically meaningful.
Global datasets (such as ERA5) adjusted using local records, however short, are
increasingly making this approach more feasible. This method must be clearly
defined by the consultants carrying out the work.

Depending on the method chosen, it may be possible to go directly to a

probabilistic analysis and develop flood maps for any given return period. It is
common, however, to use the deterministic events with different return periods
described in previous sections and use those data to help define the probabilistic
hazard data through look-up tables based on these events. A probabilistic
approach can include the fitting of joint probability distributions to extremes at, for
example, multiple rain gauges (Tawn et al. 2018). This permits the generation of
synthetic rainstorms having realistic spatial distributions. Rainfall-runoff modeling
translates the rainfall into river flows at key nodes with associated severity based on
frequency analysis.

Synthetic time series add value in several ways:

■ Meteorological characteristics such as rainfall typically show a large

variability, which can be lost in short periods of record. This inevitable
limitation of historical records will affect risk assessment.
■ If implemented well, a synthetic time series is a method to overcome these
potential shortcomings, especially if the synthetic time series is long enough
(for example, 10,000 years) and will contain substantially more extremes
than observed historical records.
■ Synthetic time series will also contain many different variations and spatial
configurations of essentially the same design event (for example, a 20-, 50-,
or 100-year flood event), allowing for estimation of a wide range of possible
spatially varying, and in some cases cumulating, risk metrics.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 71

It is noted that generating these long synthetic time series is not straightforward
and can be quite computer demanding in specific environments. For coastal
environments, for instance, long time series with nearshore tides, storm surge, and
nearshore waves due to tropical weather systems cannot be derived statistically
from global datasets because the weather systems are not well captured in
these models. Hence, detailed coastal modeling would first be required to derive
synthetic time series of input boundary conditions that include a proper spatial
and temporal distribution of the storm surge and nearshore waves. For these
environments, statistical sampling of data produced from different sources
(for example, models and observations) of tidal and nontidal water levels and
associated waves may be suitable and a more efficient approach.

Outputs from a full probabilistic flood hazard assessment would typically be

gridded datasets of flood depth and probability as well as the gridded depth for any
given return period. This output includes more information than a semi-probabilistic
assessment in that it provides a continuous flood frequency curve for the entire
domain in space rather than only the results of discrete extreme events at each
output location. It may also be a requirement (for large study areas) to provide
statistics for the probability of multiple events of a given probability occurring
at a given frequency—for example, the likelihood that a large river basin could
experience several independent events, at the same time or in a single year, that are
greater than 10-year return period events. Only a full probabilistic assessment can
address these types of questions.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 72

REFERENCES

Asmadin, A., V. P. Siregar, and I. Jaya. 2021. “The Change in Elevation, Land Subsidence and
Local Sea Level Rise Using Coastal Response Model in Jakarta.” IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science 750 (1): 012010. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/750/1/012010.

Bai, T., A. L. Mayer, W. D. Shuster, and G. Tian. 2018. “The Hydrologic Role of Urban Green
Space in Mitigating Flooding (Luohe, China).” Sustainability 10 (10): 3584. doi:10.3390/
su10103584.

Bakker, T. M., J. A. A. Antolínez, T. W. B. Leijnse, S. G. Pearson, and A. Giardino. 2022.

“Estimating Tropical Cyclone-Induced Winds, Waves, and Surge: A General Methodology
Based on Representative Tracks.” Coastal Engineering 176 (4): 104154. doi:10.1016/j.
coastaleng.2022.104154.

Bellos, V., I. Nalbantis, and G. Tsakiris. 2018. “Friction Modeling of Flood Flow Simulations.”
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 144 (12): 04018073. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-
7900.0001540.

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.” (OJ L 288/27, 6.11.2007). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060&rid=3.

Foumelis, M. 2020. “Terrain Deformation in Urban Areas.” Service Technical Report

WB-CRP-01 for the World Bank City Resilience Program (CRP) and Earth Observation for
Sustainable Development (Disaster Risk Reduction) (EO4SD-DRR) of the European Space
Agency.

Gilles, D., N. Young, H. Schroeder, J. Piotrowski, and Y.-J. Chang. 2012. “Inundation Mapping
Initiatives of the Iowa Flood Center: Statewide Coverage and Detailed Urban Flooding Analysis.”
Water 4 (1): 85–106. doi:10.3390/w4010085.

Hallegatte, S., A. Shah, R. Lempert, C. Brown, and S. Gill. 2012. “Investment Decision Making
under Deep Uncertainty: Application to Climate Change.” Policy Research Working Paper 6193,
World Bank, Washington, DC.

Martini, F., and R. Loat, eds. 2007. “Handbook on Good Practices for Flood Mapping in
Europe.” Handbook, European Exchange Circle on Flood Mapping (EXCIMAP) for the
Water Directors, European Union, Brussels.

Meigh, J., F. Farquharson, and J. Sutcliffe. 1997. “A Worldwide Comparison of Regional

Flood Estimation Methods and Climate.” Hydrological Sciences 42 (2): 225–44.
doi:10.1080/02626669709492022.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 73

Muis, S., M. Verlana, H. C. Winsemius, J. C. J. H. Aerts, and P. J. Ward. 2016. “A Global

Reanalysis of Storm Surges and Extreme Sea Levels.” Nature Communications 7: 11969.
doi:10.1038/ncomms11969.

Rentschler, J., J. Braese, N. Jones, and P. Avner. 2019. “Three Feet Under: Urban Jobs,
Connectivity, and Infrastructure.” Policy Research Working Paper 8898, World Bank,
Washington, DC.

Russell, B., L. Torres Duenas, M. Irazoqui Apecechea, H. Boisgontier, F. S. Weiland,

F. Diermanse, and E. Verschelling. 2021a. “Flood Risk Profile for Greater Monrovia:
Deliverable C – Risk Report.” Report No. 166807, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and
Recovery and World Bank, Washington, DC.

Russell, B., L. Torres Duenas, M. Irazoqui Apecechea, C. Draper, H. Boisgontier, F. S. Weiland,

F. Diermanse, and E. Verschelling. 2021b. “Flood Risk Profile for Greater Monrovia: Deliverable
E – Final and Summary Report.” Report No. 166808, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Tawn, J., R. Shooter, R. Towe, and R. Lamb. 2018. “Modelling Spatial Extreme Events with
Environmental Applications.” Spatial Statistics 28: 39–58. doi:10.1016/j.spasta.2018.04.007.

WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2011. “Guide to Storm Surge Forecasting.”

WMO-No. 1076, WMO, Geneva.

World Bank. 2017. “Paramaribo Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.” Final assessment report for
the Greater Paramaribo Flood Risk Management Program, World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2019. “Flood and Erosion Risk Assessment and Mitigation: N’Djili Urban
Watershed, Kinshasa.” Report prepared by Studio Galli Ingegneria, Padua, Italy, for
the World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2021. “Flood and Erosion Risk Assessment and Mitigation: N’Djili Urban
Watershed, Kinshasa – Phase 2.” Report prepared by Studio Galli Ingegneria, Padua, Italy,
for the World Bank, Washington, DC.

Zeleňáková, M., G. Hudáková, and A. Stec. 2020. Rainwater Infiltration in Urban Areas. Water
Science and Technology Library, vol. 89. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-
34698-0_7.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Hazard Assessment 74

ENDNOTES

1 The remote-sensing product abbreviations refer to Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation

(MSWEP); Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM); Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM);
ECMRF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5); and Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation (CHIRPS).
2 Manning’s “n” is a coefficient that represents the roughness or friction applied to the flow by
the channel. Manning’s n-values are often selected from tables but can be back-calculated from
field measurements.
3 DesInventar (https://www.desinventar.net/) is a disaster information management system—hosted and
primarily sponsored by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR)— that can be
used as a tool to generate national disaster inventories and build databases of damage, losses, and
other effects of disasters. EM-DAT, the international disasters database
(https://www.emdat.be/), is provided by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
(CRED) at the Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels. Providing an objective basis for vulnerability
assessment and decision-making in disaster situations, it provides information on the human impact
of disasters as well as disaster-related economic damage estimates and disaster-specific international
aid contributions.
4 For more information, see the World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal website:
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 75

CHAPTER

FLOOD RISK
ASSESSMENT

1 2 3 4 5

PROJECT SCOPING HAZARD MODELING RISK MODELING INTERVENTIONS CLOSEOUT

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 76

3.1
INTRODUCTION

Flood risk assessments investigate and, where possible, quantify the potential
consequences of flooding from all sources to the exposed assets and the
population across a given area. To understand and quantify the risk associated with
flooding, it is necessary to capture not just the three components that determine
the scale of the impact—hazard (extent, depth); exposure; and vulnerability
(figure 3.1)—but also the likelihood (or probability) of impacts for a range of
possible conditions.

Especially in an urban environment, the risk of flooding is a complex phenomenon.

Such an environment contains many different asset types (public and private
buildings as well as various types of infrastructure such as roads, railroads, water
supply, and so on) and population groups (for instance, females, males, children,
and elderly populations; different ethnic or religious groups; and a range of
socioeconomic statuses). Each of these exposed assets and population groups have
different vulnerability to floods. A flood risk assessment must take into account all
dimensions.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 77

Several considerations are important for this type of assessment:

?
? ?
What are the relevant types
What is the purpose of the of consequences? What is the appropriate risk
risk assessment, and how modeling approach given the
will the outputs be used and available hazard, exposure,
by whom? and vulnerability data?

? ? ?

Which data sources are What information is available How should risk models be
suitable to assess the exposed on the vulnerability of calibrated or validated?
population, assets, etc.? risk receptors?

Which scenarios must be

evaluated to get a robust
insight into the current and
future risks?

Keeping the aim of the risk assessment and the end users of the outputs in mind
is essential throughout the assessment’s setup and execution. As outlined in
the Overview (figure O.2), the ultimate goal of a Level 2 assessment is usually to
help define and guide decisions on intervention strategies for a specific urban
context to mitigate the risks of flooding. By nature, such an assessment should
always have a forward-looking approach that includes climate change and urban
growth projections.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 78

It is also important to be clear on how and by whom the results will be used.
This may put specific requirements on the production and presentation of the risk
assessment results and which specific aspects must be addressed in a specific
context. Having this conversation early in the process will help ensure that the risk
results are understood and support the decision-making process.

Figure 3.1 Components of Flood Risk

HAZARDS EXPOSURE VULNERABILITY

9.99

9.99

FLOOD RISK

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 79

One of the most useful and key outputs of a flood risk assessment is the
enumeration of damages and losses and affected population. These are often
expressed as annualized values, normally presented either as gridded values
distributed across the study area or as an integrated risk value for an entire given
area (for example, municipal boundary or sub-basin). Damage and losses can
also be calculated for each individual element in the exposure inventory or group
of sectors (health, education, agriculture, public, private, and so on), economic
activities, or income sources. Similarly, it is useful to calculate the impacts of floods
to different population groups based on sex, income level and age.

The terms “losses” and “damages” are often used interchangeably. More correctly,
however, “damages” refers to the direct cost of physical damage to buildings,
contents, infrastructure, and the like, whereas “losses” refers to indirect impacts on
the economy such as lost revenue or income due to commercial operations being
limited, or lost productivity due to health issues, and so on.

Gridded data of the risk metrics can normally be achieved at a relatively high spatial
resolution (potentially 100 meters by 100 meters). These can easily be aggregated
to wards, districts, local government areas, river basin units, or any user-defined
polygons that can be derived for multiples or subsets of the aforementioned.
They should provide sufficient granularity to assess the effects of different exposure
or vulnerability factors such as poverty and local resilience on aspects such as
recovery rate, and how these effects may influence the distribution of flood risk.
There will inevitably be differences in the exact definition or interpretation of these
risk metrics. However, as long as the definitions are clearly defined and agreed
upon, the simplest commonsense approach should always be adopted that makes
the best use of the data available for a Level 2 assessment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 AP Flood Risk Assessment 80

for an entire city difficult if it is derived flood risk at each grid cell is estimated
BOX 3.1 using a deterministic approach—that is, by looking up the simulation results
using a range of return periods (such as of the event in the lookup table
Probabilistic Flood 2 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, that most resemble the generated
Risk Assessment for or 200 years) that assumes the same hydrometeorological conditions of
Zanzibar City and Dar severity of event over the entire city. the day.
es Salaam, Tanzania
The fully probabilistic assessment The output of this modeling consisted
A flood risk assessment was carried out was carried out using a derived event of a set of genuinely distributed risk
between January 2020 and January set consisting of 10,000 years of maps considering all relevant flood
2023 by the World Bank for the synthetic rainfall depths, soil moisture events in the 10,000-year synthetic time
Tanzanian cities of Dar es Salaam and states (estimated from antecedent series. A key difference between these
Zanzibar City on the nearby island of precipitation), and tide levels. These probabilistic maps and more traditional
Unguja (World Bank 2023). Its objective events were derived through a statistical deterministic hazard maps is the fullness
was to provide the Bank with a robust analysis of all the available data of the data they contain. They can
and defendable set of current and future for the region, of different sources, provide a risk or hazard probability curve
hazard and risk data and mapping to lengths of record, and spatial and at every point on the map, giving the
support the Tanzanian government in temporal resolutions. complete picture of flood risk across
improving risk management. the city.
Ideally, these series would be used as
Although the assessment was relatively input for the hydrological or hydraulic These maps can be used to quantify
standard in many technical aspects, model to derive a 10,000-year synthetic flood risk across the city, providing
a fully probabilistic assessment was series of river flows and flood depths. the usual metrics of average annual
conducted because of the quantity and, However, this was not feasible in terms loss (AAL) and probable maximum
more importantly, quality of existing of the model simulation time. Therefore, loss (PML), but instead of being limited
spatial data available to the study as well to save computation time, a “lookup to either annualized results or single
as the requirement for a more in-depth table” was used that contained results return period results, it is possible to
understanding of risk in a city that was from hydrological or hydraulic model map the probability of any event and
suffering increasingly frequent and simulations of a set of predefined its impacts at any location across the
damaging flooding. synthetic events of combinations of city. This provides a powerful tool in
rainfall, tide, and soil moisture. For each helping understand and manage risk
The fully probabilistic risk assessment day in the 10,000-year series, the within a city.
approach would provide a much richer
risk assessment than the “deterministic”
approach because it captures the Flooding in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
real variability in flood-generating
events and the vast range of weather
and climate dynamics behind these
events.a Rainstorms of any significant
magnitude do not occur uniformly over
an entire city as large as Dar es Salaam,
and the sub-basins that drain into and
through the city will all respond and
combine differently in every storm.
A rainstorm can occur in combination
with different starting soil moisture
conditions and sea levels, which will
also affect the catchment response to
the rain. This makes interpretation of
the annual average damage or losses Source: © Chris Morgan.

a For a further general description of deterministic versus probabilistic approaches to flood risk modeling, see chapter 1.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 81

3.2
CONSEQUENCES

Risk quantification starts with recognizing different types of impacts from an

urban flood event. Affected population, damage to assets, economic losses, and
environmental and cultural damage are key consequences in any flood situation
(as summarized in chapter 1, figure 1.4.) Consequences are often categorized in
two ways (table 3.1)—based on the difference between (1) tangible and intangible
damages, and (2) direct and indirect damages, resulting in four possible groupings.
They are not always clear-cut, and there is some flexibility between the groups, but
the distinctions are useful because they can support not only the quantification of
relevant consequences in a specific context but also how best to quantify them.

Table 3.1 Examples of Flood Damage, by Type

MEASUREMENT
FORM OF DAMAGE
TANGIBLE INTANGIBLE

Direct Physical damage to assets:

Loss of life
Buildings
Loss of cultural heritage
Structures
Loss of ecological goods
Vehicles

Indirect Business interruption Long-term environmental impacts

(for example, loss of fisheries)
Welfare losses
Social impacts such as those from
Short-term and long-term delays
anxiety or stress

Gender- and age-specific hardships

Short- and long-term health effects

Source: Adapted from the FLOODsite Integrated Project, “Task 9: Guidelines for
Socio-Economic Damage Evaluation,”
http://www.floodsite.net/html/work_programme_detail.asp?taskID=9.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 82

The horizontal axis in table 3.1 categorizes flood impacts as either tangible or
intangible damage. Tangible damages are those that would be easily measurable
in monetary terms. Intangible damages relate to those impacts that are far more
difficult or even impossible to quantify. For example, the floodwater damage to a
building could be directly quantified (that is, the cost of repair) and is considered
tangible. Suffering and hardship due to flooding as well as mental or physical health
problems are also direct results, but they cannot be quantified in monetary terms
and are therefore intangible.

The vertical categorization in table 3.1 is between direct and indirect damages and
losses. The impact on the health of individuals as a result of flooding (injuries, loss
of life) may be a direct consequence of a flood. However, the loss to the economy
due to reduced economic production would be considered indirect—although still
tangible because it is measurable and specific to the flooding event.

When doing a Level 2 risk assessment, it is important to identify which

consequences are relevant to include and whether and how these can be
quantified. In general, the most robust risk quantification models have been
developed for direct, tangible damages. Models for indirect, tangible damages
also exist to quantify the damages due to business and transport interruption.
The uncertainty of models for indirect, tangible damage is generally much larger
because of the many interactions and data requirements involved. Also, combined
modeling strategies have been proposed allowing for the dynamic losses from a
flood event (see, for example, Koks et al. 2014).

Intangible damage is by definition hard to monetize, but these consequences can

be estimated in other terms (such as number of people injured or casualties). It is
important to highlight that some risks can be sensitive to address in a specific
context (including loss of life and consequences to specific objects such as
cultural heritage).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 83

3.3
ASSESSMENT SELECTION
AND DATA REQUIREMENTS

The risk modeling choice depends on the required level of assessment (as
summarized in the framework shown in chapter 1, figure O.2). Factors governing
this choice, among others, are project development stage and objective; relevant
types of risk receptors and the consequences; availability of data and possibility of
data collection; and available time and budget. For screening purposes (Level 1),
spatial quantification of the number of exposed assets and population may be
sufficient. For a detailed assessment (Level 3), robust quantification of all damages
(including intangible), as well as direct and indirect impacts, will be required as
input for the cost-benefit analysis, feasibility, and design.

A strategic flood risk assessment (Level 2), which is the subject of this handbook,
requires a spatial quantification of tangible (and, where possible, intangible)
impacts, and must consider both direct and indirect impacts. Two approaches to
exposure and vulnerability for quantifying the risks to assets are commonly used:
area-based and asset-specific.

Area-based assessment. Under this approach, an approximation of the area

covered by specific land uses is made as follows:

■ This approach usually uses a combination of satellite imagery, available land

use maps, and local knowledge, with polygons created around communities
or neighborhoods and commercial or industrial districts. It does not look at
individual assets like public and private buildings, hospitals, roads, or railways
within an area.
■ The data can be gridded to reasonably high-resolution grid data (such as
100 meters), where an average of the land use type is assigned to each grid
cell, and an average flood depth across that particular cell is used for the
depth damage calculation. The percentage of overall area assumed to be
assets needs to be estimated—often from satellite imagery.
■ A high level of uncertainty relates to inundation depth associated with
specific buildings (that is, the assessment does not distinguish between
open ground or a building within the area) or other assets, but on average,
the results can be reasonable.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 84

■ The damage calculations can be carried out using vulnerability curves in

combination with area-based maximum damage values (using, for example,
US dollars per square meter) for which global datasets are available, such
as the ones reported by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre
(JRC) (Huizinga, de Moel, and Szewczyk 2017). These calculations can be
fine-tuned based on local knowledge or expert views.

Asset-specific assessment. This approach may be more onerous, attempting to

identify all individual at-risk buildings and other assets and allocate a specific use or
type, as follows:

■ Local OpenStreetMap (OSM) initiatives and emerging satellite image

processing algorithms mean that individual building outlines and building
types as well as other assets can be created through partially automated
processes or may already be available from cadastre-type government data.
■ This approach is more accurate for flood inundation to specific assets but is
still dependent on high-quality land use or building type data. Data would
not normally be gridded, and inundation depth would be attributed directly
from the hazard layer. The results, however, would be processed through a
standard geographic information system (GIS), and the outputs would be
gridded at any resolution required.
■ The damage calculations follow the same procedure as area-based
assessments with use of a vulnerability function. For a building-specific
assessment or other built-up assets like infrastructure, these damage
calculations can use the flood hazard information in two ways: (1) using an
average depth across the area of the polygon that represents the building
footprint, in which case the calculation also uses the area (or size) of the
building; or (2) using the simulated flood depth at the center of the building.

Both the asset-based and asset-specific approaches may use global data such
as from the JRC (Huizinga, de Moel, and Szewczyk 2017), but it is always better
where feasible to combine these global data with local, more representative
information to reduce the potentially large uncertainty in exposure classification and
vulnerability approximations. Ideally, local datasets would be used for a city-scale
assessment, enabling more accurate damage assessment as well as the attribution
of other physical as well as social and economic factors that can significantly
affect the impact of flooding or the ability to recover. This approach also allows
for a more flexible and meaningful identification of flood risk hot spots and is not
necessarily constrained by preconceived or artificial boundaries applied at the start
of the assessment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 85

3.4
EXPOSURE DATA

3.4.1 Baseline Data

Various baseline data are necessary for extraction, analysis, and presentation
purposes during a risk assessment. These baseline data may include political,
administrative boundaries as well as outlines of relevant features such as watershed
boundaries, river networks, permanent waterbodies, and the like.

Information on administrative boundaries, including definitions of various levels

(Admin-1, Admin-2, and so on) and agreement about the official boundaries to
be used in risk assessments, are essential, especially in circumstances involving
contested political boundaries. These baseline data can often be retrieved from
existing data portals (such as, for administrative boundaries, the Humanitarian Data
Exchange [HDX]).1

3.4.2 Buildings and Unbuilt Land

Buildings are usually among the easiest assets to define and the most significant
assets at risk, with breakdown by occupancy type (such as residential, industrial,
commercial, governmental buildings, or informal settlements) often identified
from OSM. Where building-specific data are not available, alternative methods
can be used that apply typical building uses or types for an area as percentages.
For instance, a specific industrial area may have 70 percent industrial, 20 percent
commercial, and 10 percent residential use, and these percentages can be used
when assigning the building types flooded. This method often requires local
information, data, or expert knowledge.

Other relevant building information is the structural type. Buildings can be

constructed with different materials such as concrete, masonry, wood, adobe, and
so on. The building’s structural type is important because this determines how
vulnerable it is to floods and also defines the replacement costs.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 86

Typical sources of building information include the following:

■ Open-source information. Often OSM includes polygons of general land

use data. OSM does not necessarily have complete or consistent data quality
across a city. Cross-checking of the data against recent satellite data is
recommended and improvements or corrections made where necessary
and feasible. Another open source of land use data is the European Space
Agency’s Global Land Cover.
■ Government zoning data. Land management and planning roles within
local or national government may have usable data that may provide
percentages of occupancy.
■ Property cadastre system. The system often only relates to the overall plot
but can provide details of land use (and in some instances, value). However,
it can also contain sensitive data and therefore be difficult to obtain. It
also comes at a cost to obtain, depending on the funding model for the
responsible government agency.
■ Satellite-derived data. Various methods have been developed to derive
building footprints from satellite imagery (for example, Gavankar and Ghosh
2018). Note that Google Research’s Open Buildings Dataset is an open-
source product of footprint extraction from satellite imagery, which covers
parts of Africa. An initial assessment is that its accuracy estimates are
“optimistic,” especially relative to OSM (where it is available). Remote-sensing
imagery has also been used to define development patterns, including
building structure types (for example, Hu et al. 2014).
■ Local knowledge. It may be possible to use crowdsourcing initiatives to
define broad land-use or building-type classifications and zones. Targeted
crowdsourcing can also help fill in the gaps if OSM is of inconsistent quality
across an area or out of date. Input from local specialists (such as quantity
surveyors or architects) is generally of great help in classifying structure types
and informing realistic replacement costs for these structures.

As for unbuilt land within an urban setting, the impact of flooding can be
significant. This land may have many uses, such as urban agriculture, fisheries, or
livestock, and may form an important part of the food security chain. Although
not specifically built upon, land within the city may also contain assets and
belongings of individual households or local communities, such as vehicles,
livestock, machinery, or equipment related to small-scale commercial or industrial
enterprises. Flood damage to these assets is virtually impossible to quantify directly
but should be taken into account.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 87

3.4.3 Population

Flooding affects people in numerous ways, some direct and some indirect.
The impacts on individuals or communities are often much less tangible than
the direct impacts on buildings and infrastructure, but they are nonetheless just
as damaging. Several main factors must be included:

■ Numbers of people directly affected: normally calculated using the

residential property count combined with the latest census or equivalent data
that provides occupancy numbers or density
■ Community demographics: age, gender, marital status, income or poverty
levels, educational attainment, and employment status, for which the type of
property and area can provide a useful proxy
■ Poverty, health, and the recovery capacity: important factors to understand
to avoid biasing mitigation solutions in ways that help only those who are
more able.

Potential datasets for population exposure include the following:

■ Global estimated data such as WorldPop, the Global Human Settlement

Layer, and the World Settlement Footprint
■ Local census data
■ Indirect population estimates based on per-building or unity occupancy
rates, especially useful for high-rise buildings
■ Specific surveys on vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children,
disabled, or poor.

Notably, the actual number of people in specific urban neighborhoods at specific

moments can be much higher than at other times for a variety of reasons (for
example, presence of large markets).

3.4.4 Critical Infrastructure

“Critical infrastructure” is the term used to describe assets, structures, or systems

that are essential for maintaining vital societal functions, health, safety, security,
economic, or social well-being of people, communities, and government
(figure 3.2). Any disruption or damage to these would have a significant impact on
a nation as a result of the failure to maintain those functions.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 88

Figure 3.2 Critical Infrastructure Sectors

Chemical Communications Dams Emergency Services Financial Services

Government Information Transportation Commercial Critical Defense Industrial

Facilities Technology Systems Facilities Manufacturing Base

Energy Food and Agriculture Health Care and Nuclear Reactors, Water and
Public Health Materials, and Waste Wastewater Systems

Source: Adapted from DHS 2016.

Most of these are discrete, geospatially recognizable be accounted for, one potential method for mapping is to
features such as roads, hospitals, emergency services, statistically distribute these in a gridded dataset based on
dams, electrical substations or power stations, and population data. This may not be ideal for local-level risk
large factories. Some, however, are less clear, such as analysis, but more suited for a subnational (that is, Admin-1
communications, information technology, and commercial or Admin-2-level) assessment.
facilities. If they can be mapped, they should be included in
the assessment and, as a minimum, identified as being at Yet, determining vulnerability for some critical infrastructure
risk from flooding or not. is less straightforward, and quantifying the impact of
flooding on these types of exposure may not be feasible.
Although it is clearly preferable to identify the specific It should also be noted that in many countries, certain
locations of critical infrastructure, in reality, it is difficult to aspects (such as location) of critical infrastructure will be
identify all facilities. Often total numbers (for example, of considered “sensitive data” and may not be available for
schools) at the district or subdistrict level can be found this type of assessment.
from official sources. For the remaining facilities that cannot

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 89

resilient and inclusive design, with consensus on the challenges, flood

BOX 3.2 a balance of green, blue, and gray drivers, and opportunities, supported
infrastructure. by maps and participatory tools
Strong Stakeholder ■ Community-based assessments:
Engagement in Intensive stakeholder engagement field surveys and community
Indonesia throughout the entire assignment was interviews to collect insights and
adopted, including a close working perspectives from citizens
Engagement of stakeholders in a flood relationship with local government ■ Awareness raising materials:
hazard and risk assessment is essential officials to develop in-house capability development of materials and visuals
for a variety of reasons. Not only can and knowledge based on guidance from to highlight the nature of floods but
citizens, government officials, the the Urban Floods Technical Working also to call for action
private sector, and academia provide Group, comprising central government ■ Strategic communication and
valuable inputs on the context of floods, line agencies responsible for urban advocacy: enhancement of the link
but potential interventions can also flood risk management and headed by and action between local national
be identified by understanding the the Ministry of National Development governments and the national
potential for collaboration and action Planning (BAPPENAS). government policies.
between these actors. The support and
action of stakeholders for prioritized The stakeholder engagement strategy Through these elements, the
interventions is paramount for making comprises four elements: assignment has been successful in
interventions sustainable. The urban engaging numerous stakeholders.
flood resilience project in three urban ■ Participatory planning and These engagements were also
environments in Indonesia has engaged visioning workshops: a series of accompanied with strong visualizations
with the stakeholders through different multistakeholder workshops to aim for to support the dialogue.
inspiring elements.

Rapid urbanization, infrastructure Participatory Flood Mapping in Indonesia, 2021

constraints, and regulatory incompliance
are key factors increasing the
vulnerability of Indonesian cities.
The government spends US$300–
500 million per year on postdisaster
reconstruction. Because climate
change and population growth will
further exacerbate these issues, chronic
flooding in urban environments is an
existential threat.

Urban flood risk diagnostics have

been developed for three urban
environments—Bima, Manado, and
Pontianak—consisting of flood risk
assessments, urban flood resilience
strategies, investment options,
environmental and social management
considerations, and preliminary Source: © World Bank.
cost estimates (World Bank 2020).
Specific emphasis has been paid to

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 90

3.5
VULNERABILITY

3.5.1 Direct Damages to Assets

Because actual impact data for all possible events are normally absent, estimating
the direct damage to different asset types (buildings, roads, railroads, agricultural
land, and so on) for a given flood event is often carried out with the help of asset
vulnerability curves and associated maximum damage values. Asset-specific
vulnerability curves link the hazard and the exposure to quantify the actual damage
to an asset, referred to as a depth-damage function or curve.

The flood hazard is often characterized by the water depth, but sometimes other
flood variables are also considered, such as velocity combined with depth or
duration. The shape of the curve reflects the kind of building or asset and how
susceptible, on average, that type of structure might be to damage from a certain
depth of water. The use of generic curves is common where damage is related to a
factor or percentage of the building or asset value (or more usually, the value of the
maximum damage that could occur to that asset due to that particular hazard—not
always the same thing). The use of the curve is simply a multiplication of the factor
by the maximum damage value for that asset (figure 3.3).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 91

Figure 3.3 Sample Depth-Damage Curve for Residential Buildings

1.2
1.00
0.96
1.0 0.90
0.82
DAMAGE FACTOR

0.8
0.64

0.53
0.6

0.38

0.4
0.22

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

WATER DEPTH (METERS)

WATER
DEPTH 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
(M)

DAMAGE
0 0.22 0.38 0.53 0.64 0.82 0.90 0.96 1.00
FACTOR

Note: The “damage factor” is normally expressed as a value from 0 to 1. The table to
the right of the graph shows the correlation between the water depth (in meters) and the
damage factor for a sample residential building, whose data points yield the building’s
depth-damage curve.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 92

Defining appropriate maximum damage values for assets in a specific context is

important to arrive at realistic flood damage estimates. Maximum damage values
(often also referred to as replacement costs) are necessary for the entire range of
assets such as buildings but also critical infrastructure such as roads, railroads, and
the like. These maximum values are often expressed in US dollars per square meter
(USD/m2) or as an absolute value per building or other asset type, and they will vary
significantly by asset type (for example, block of flats, slum dwelling, factory, water
sanitation plant, and so on). For line infrastructure such as roads and railroads,
these maximum damage values are often provided per unit length but can differ
depending on type (for example, paved or unpaved, double or single lane).

There are many useful sources of information for defining maximum damage
values, such as local engineering or construction documents; expert knowledge;
post disaster need assessments (PDNAs); former projects; and global databases
(such as from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre [JRC]). These
typically provide maximum damage values for broad categories of assets, which are
suitable for a Level 2 assessment.

Verification of information with local experts is often necessary to align the

vulnerability curves and maximum damage numbers from global databases with
reality. Regarding maximum damage values, a starting point for any damage
calculation is to determine what things cost. Price levels, indexation, and means
to translate international cost estimates to local context may be helpful. Global
datasets are a good starting point, but local verification is essential. Most data
are readily available or can be obtained through local contacts, engineering firms
or suppliers, and, importantly, expert judgment. There is a large potential for
uncertainty within the data, so multiple sources of information will help reduce the
likelihood of significant error.

The data below show an extract of actual average cost estimates for Kampala
in Uganda and is based on local research and knowledge when compared with
the global values taken from the JRC dataset (table 3.2). This demonstrates the
importance of carrying out validation using local data whenever possible.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 93

Table 3.2 Replacement or Rebuilding Costs in Kampala, Uganda, 2017

A Residential contents (per building)a B Residential construction (per m²)a

ITEMS COST (US$) BUILDING TYPE COST

(US$/M2)

Sofa and chairs 2,000

R1 - Concrete (masonry) 430

Refrigerator 800
R2 - Wooden with corrugated iron roof 75

Cooker 700
R3 - Mixed concrete and wood 300

Washing machine 700

R4 - Wooden buildings on concrete base 150

TV and electrical goods 1,500

R5 - Buildings on concrete stilts 695

Table and chairs 2,500

R6 - Multistory 350

Carpets and floor coverings 3,000

Bedroom furniture and bedding 1,500

C JRC rebuilding and replacement
values b
Clothes and personal items 10,000

TYPE COST (US$)

TOTAL 22,700
Residential building costs (US$/m²) 340

Residential contents (cost/building) 51,000

Note: US$/m2 = US dollars per square meter.

a. Replacement and rebuilding values obtained from local sources in Kampala, Uganda.
b. Replacement and rebuilding values obtained from technical report for Uganda of
the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 94

3.5.2 Economic Losses

The most common approach in a Level 2 assessment is estimating the total indirect
damage as a fixed percentage of the direct damages. In this way, all indirect
damages such as business interruption inside and outside the affected area but
also traffic interruption are lumped into one percentage. This assumption is crude
but generally acceptable because more-explicit quantification of indirect damages
requires large amounts of data (which often are not available) and a depth of
analysis usually beyond a Level 2 assessment.

Various studies have provided indications of such percentages based on historical

flood events (see, for example, De Bruijn et al. 2015; Hallegatte 2015). A recent
study on indirect damage as fraction of direct damages, based on 43 cases,
estimated an average of 50 percent (Giupponi 2021). If indirect damage is applied
as a fixed percentage, it is always recommended to justify this percentage as well as
possible by looking at the specific urban context and acknowledging its similarities
and differences with historical cases.

More explicit quantification of indirect damages is sometimes carried out for

specific cases such as network analysis for transport infrastructure (for example,
Papilloud and Keiler 2021; Rogelis 2016). Flooding on transport links such as road
networks can have significant indirect impacts, not only on the individual’s ability
to travel and go about daily activities but also on the ability of commercial and
government bodies to operate. These types of indirect impacts can be assessed
if there is sufficient knowledge of activities within the city—gathered by mapping
assets, travel routes, and areas affected by flooding—as well as the flood’s depth
and duration.

In practice, road network data are combined with flood depth and duration
data to calculate impacts. For example, the impact on a main trunk road of
inundation greater than 0.3 meters for eight hours can be determined through
network analysis.

Such an analysis has several key aspects:

■ Overlaying flood maps and duration data can define road sections that are
subject to flooding.
■ Where employment or other areas of high economic activity can be defined,
the impact of flooding can be assessed on both access and productivity.
■ Network analysis can be carried out to identify the duration of the road
closure, alternative routes, and additional mileage or travel time.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 95

■ With sufficient granularity of economic data, such as disaggregated gross

domestic product (GDP), it is feasible to quantify the economic impact—
both on business and industrial output and on individuals or communities.

Using the outputs of the road network analysis, estimates can be derived of the
indirect damage due to floods. These can be expressed in various metrics such as
monetized damage, travel time, accessibility disruption, and so on. For more details
on flood risk analysis of road networks, see the World Bank report, “Flood Risk in
Road Networks” (Rogelis 2016), and the examples therein.

3.5.3 Population Impacts

A risk analysis should also assess the vulnerability of the population. These
impacts may have various dimensions and degrees of severity and may also vary
between different social groups within the communities. The most commonly used
parameter to estimate the impact on the population is to calculate the population
directly affected by floods. “Directly affected” refers here to the population that lives
within the flood extent. Since the degree of impact varies depending on the flood
and social characteristics, different classes are often distinguished. Also, a minimum
threshold (for example, 10-30 centimeters) is often applied, below which the
population is considered unaffected.

There are several ways to quantify the population directly affected by floods,
depending on the data availability. If detailed data exist on the population’s spatial
distribution and specific social characteristics (such as gender and poverty), the
population maps can be overlaid with flood maps, and the affected population can
be quantified for each flood event and presented in various ways. If detailed data
are lacking, the affected population may be indirectly estimated using the affected
buildings and average household size. Note that these approaches do not account
for directly (or indirectly) affected people who (were to) visit the area. In certain
urban settings, this can be quite relevant when large daily markets with many
visitors are present.

Another less commonly adopted risk indicator for directly affected population is
estimating loss of life. (See Jonkman [2007] for an introduction and overview of
this topic.) However, some urban floods can give rise to dangerous situations and
could cause fatalities, and such an indicator may be useful in a risk assessment.
Addressing, estimating, and monetizing loss of life can be a sensitive topic in
specific contexts. These sensitivities shall be taken into account before loss of life is
considered in a Level 2 assessment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 96

Mortality models exist with different levels of detail and can be based on different
modeling principles (figure 3.4). Mortality can be expressed as a function of
flood characteristics such as water depth, velocity, and rise rate (figure 3.5).
These vulnerability curves have a high degree of uncertainty; many other factors
(for example, temperature, the effectiveness of warning, and arrival time) may play
a role, and thus these estimates should be used with great caution. Potential loss of
life due to flooding can also be empirically related to the overall number of people
exposed to a given flood event.

Regressions based on major coastal flood events in recent history may be used
with caution where there is a significant likelihood of conditions that would be
dangerous to life. Most flood-related fatalities globally occur while people are
away from their homes and usually are trying to reach safety and travel through
floodwater (figure 3.6).

Figure 3.4 Different Models for Loss of Life from Flooding, by Level of
Detail and Modeling Principles

MICRO:
INDIVIDUAL
Watson et al. 2001

McClelland and Bowles 2002 Lind et al. 2004

USACE 2001
MESO:
Level ZONE OR
of detail LOCATION Ramsbottom et al. 2004

Jonkman 2004
McClelland 1993

Graham 1999
DeKay and

IPET 2007

MACRO:
EVENT

EMPIRICAL MECHANISTIC

Basic modeling principles

Source: Johnstone et al. 2005.

Note: Each citation represents a different model for loss of life. For more detail, see the
reference list entries for these citations.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 97

Figure 3.5 Example of Mortality Function as Function of Water Depth,

Rise Rate, and Flow Velocity

v: flow velocity [m/s]

hv: 7m2/s

Breach zone
FD=1

2 m/s

2.1 m
h: water depth [m]
0.5 m/hr
Remaining Zone with
zone rapidly rising
water

w: rise rate [m/hr]

Source: Jonkman 2007.

Note: FD = mortality (or fatality) probability; h = water depth; m = meters; m/hr = meters
per hour; m/s = meters per second; v = velocity.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 98

Figure 3.6 Mortality Rates from Eight Recent Floods in Selected

Countries, 2005-21

1,000,000

GENERALLY AROUND
100,000 A 1% FATALITY RATE
NUMBER OF FATALITIES

10,000 India floods, 2013

Pakistan
floods, 2010
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) Hurricane Katrina
floods and mudslides, 2011 (US), 2005
1,000

Hyderabad (India)
European floods, 2020
floods
100 (Belgium),
2021 Baghlan (Afghanistan)
floods, 2014
Accra (Ghana)
floods, 2015
10
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000

NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED

Source: Jonkman 2007, using data from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) of the
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).

Note: Graph displays data from eight floods, a selected sample of large-scale flood events.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 99

3.6
FLOOD RISK SIMULATION
SCENARIOS

3.6.1 Role of Event Impacts

Different scales of economic and social impacts occur for different events (see
typical examples in figure 3.7). During a frequent, typically annual event, some
damage and disruption may occur but with little threat to life. During extreme
events, which only happen very rarely, communities may experience serious
consequences with heavy losses, both economic and social. For large events,
data collection and analysis are generally carried out to provide loss and damage
estimates and inform rebuilding and recovery activities. While this information will
be event-specific, it can provide useful indicative values for validation of impacts
and damage calculations for simulated or potential real events elsewhere.

Global databases of data from past flood events also can be useful in this respect.
See, for example, the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) of the Centre for
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the United Nations open-
source tool, DesInventar.

Quantifying the impact from a flood during an event normally involves several
key parameters:

■ Depth and extent of the flood

■ Occasionally the velocity and speed of onset and the duration of inundation
■ Type of water (for example, sea, heavily polluted, high debris, or
sediment load)
■ Type of exposure and an area’s vulnerability to flooding
■ Coping or recovery capacity of households.

A common parameter often used to classify the intensity or danger of the flood
hazard for a specific event is the flood hazard rating (for example, Defra 2008).
This criterion combines the depth, velocity, and debris into one single parameter
to quickly assess the flood hazard intensity in the area of interest. Especially for
flash floods and dam break assessments with high velocities, this flood hazard
rating can provide good insight into the spatial variation of the danger of a specific

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 100

flood event. Such an event risk map can be a useful tool in a Level 2 assignment to
provide an initial view of the spatial distribution of the danger based on the outputs
from the flood hazard modeling.

Figure 3.7 Flood Events of Different Scales of Impacts

What does flood “risk” mean? Look at this example flood event

Flood event causing nuisance but not exceptional  Another clay building 
frequency is typically at least once per year Flood doesn’t reach it
Costs: US$0

Brick two-story building  Clay building 

Ground floor furniture needs Wall collapses,
replacing needs rebuilding
Costs: US$100 Costs: US$650

Flood rise was slow 

Residents (inc. kids playing football) got out
of harm’s way in time
Costs: 0 injuries, 0 deaths

US$100 + US$650 + US$0 = US$750 for this specific flood

Total costs:
event, for this specific area. No injuries or fatalities.

And this next example flood, a much more significant event

Highly exceptional flood event causing larger impacts  Another clay building 
Only occurs about once every 100 years Collapsed
Costs: US$650

Brick 2-story building  Clay building 

Both floors inundated, structure Washed
weakened, needs rebuilding Costs: US$650
Costs: US$1,700

Flood rise was very sudden 

Able men and women got out in time. Children playing out were
not warned and drowned. Many disabled and elderly drowned.
Costs: 10 deaths

US$1,700 + US$650+ US$650 = US$3,000

Total costs:
for this specific flood event, for this specific area. 10 fatalities.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 101

Source: Barnabas Caro / Deltares. © Deltares. Reproduced with permission from Deltares;
further permission required for reuse.

Flood risk is the integration of the impacts across all possible events, ranging
from frequent, low-impact scenarios to infrequent, high-impact scenarios. Flood
risk should not be confused with the impacts of individual events. The impacts
for specific events are sometimes also referred to as “event risk” to make this
distinction clear. In the determination of flood risk, the impact of specific events
are intermediate results that feed into the risk calculations. The impacts of events
are weighted by the probability of the various events. In this way, all events are
accounted for in a risk calculation.

3.6.2 Quantification and Mapping of Risk Metrics

The results of the flood hazard simulations discussed in chapter 2 are the starting
point of the risk quantification. These flood hazard simulations cover both existing
and future conditions for a range of flood events with different return periods. The
future scenarios also include uncertainties related to climate change, urban growth,
and other relevant factors (for example, subsidence). The future risk scenarios should
be based on the same set of scenarios for urban growth and land use changes.

The risk simulations in a Level 2 assessment with a set of events first quantify
the impacts to population and assets using these flood hazard events and then
convert these into risk estimates by integration across frequencies. For example,
the economic flood risk at a location or area is thus calculated as the integration
of all the damages and losses over a range of different return period flood
events (probabilities).

Commonly used risk metrics for direct and indirect damages are the expected
annual damage (EAD) or annual average loss (AAL). In a similar way, the “annual
affected population” is often used. A solid understanding and communication of
these risk parameters is important for the stakeholders involved. It is important to
realize that these metrics

■ Are long-term average values recurring each year for the current situation;
■ Can be largely exceeded depending on the severity of an event;
■ May increase or decrease in the future because of climate change,
socioeconomic changes, or both; and

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 102

■ Can be managed through structural and nonstructural interventions by

either influencing the hazard probability (for example, by drainage works);
exposure (for example, better zoning); or vulnerability (for example, improving
building codes).

The expected annual population affected can be an important indicator of which

areas within an urban environment should be prioritized for interventions. The EAD
is a key ingredient in a cost-benefit analysis for economic justification of any kind of
intervention to reduce the risk. This will be further addressed in chapter 4.

Special attention should be paid to how to map these and other risk indicators for
communication purposes to the stakeholders. As in flood hazard maps, aspects
like specific contents, scale, and use of color are applicable here as well. Because
flood risk is an integration of event impacts and probabilities, the wider audience’s
interpretation of risk maps is generally not straightforward. It may also help to
generate a set of maps with impacts for individual events, since stakeholders can
generally relate more easily to these based on their own experiences.

Also, it is important to think about what level of detail is presented in view of the
accuracy of the results in such an assignment. The results of a Level 2 assignment
are typically presented for subareas within an urban context or (sub)catchment
scales. Normalizing the results based on the area size may then be necessary to
have a fair comparison of the level of risk in the various areas.

3.7
RISK CALIBRATION AND
VERIFICATION

Flood damage and risk modeling have many uncertainties due to various factors:
limited data, model resolution, and multiple models (hazard, exposure, and
vulnerability). Understanding sources and causes of these uncertainties at all stages
of the assessment is essential. Moreover, calibration and verification against existing
data and knowledge are key steps to arriving at realistic results. Potential data
sources for calibration and verification of the hazard and risk results are historical
events (as documented in PDNAs); global loss databases such as EM-DAT; the

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 103

World Bank’s Climate Change Knowledge Portal; and local records, media reports,
and expert judgment. Note that PDNAs and other official databases often report
only severe events, whereas more information on more regular events can also be
found in media reports.

Calibration is the process of using real-life data during the model development
process to select the parameter values and methods to best fit the calibration
events. This is an important aspect of hydrological, hydraulic, and risk modeling
procedures; it requires a systematic approach and depends on real-life data or
information. The calibration process should be carried out at all stages to ensure
that the intermediate and final results are as accurate as possible and not a function
of a lucky combination of incorrect modeling steps. This principle applies to the
various stages of the process, including hydrology, hydraulics, exposure, and
vulnerability assumptions as well as attempts to quantify less-tangible aspects
of flood impacts. Different parameters can be used in the process of calibration,
such as the roughness coefficient in hazard modeling and damage values and
vulnerability relationships in the risk modeling.

Verification is the process of comparing the results of the calibrated model against
a set of real-life results at each stage of the modeling process—that is, of hazard
modeling, exposure mapping, and vulnerability assessment. It is essential that a
different set of real-life results are used for verification, and it is good practice,
where data allow, to randomly split the real-life event data into two equal sets—one
for calibration and the other for verification. In practice, sufficient data are seldom
available to allow this approach, and calibration is done using any and all data
available and verified using local knowledge and experience and a commonsense
review of the final results.

A practical example of flood risk calibration is provided in Kazi et al. (2022).

The coastline of Bangladesh is vulnerable to cyclones, and the risk of cyclone
flooding has been assessed for the entire coastal zone with a current population of
48 million people. The risk model provides estimates of damage to assets such as
housing, infrastructure, and economic activities such as agriculture. The PDNA of a
recent severe cyclone in the region (Cyclone Sidr, 2007) was then used to evaluate
how the modeled damages compared with these values. Although the initial risk
modeling estimate was within reasonable limits given all uncertainties involved,
a correction factor has been applied to align the modeling results better with the
damage numbers in reality.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 104

In general, the following may be useful to consider in this process of calibration

and verification:

Maximize the use of existing damage and loss reports and databases (for
Reports with example, PDNAs and EM-DAT). Because these are historical events, the
damage numbers numbers given may need to be adjusted to reflect present-day values. Do
of severe events: the risk modeling numbers align with evaluated historical events of a similar
intensity or extent? If not, can the differences be explained?

Does expert judgment, experience, and local knowledge confirm that the
results are sensible and reflect what might be expected from an event of a
Sensibility:
given scale in a given location? If they are not reasonably close to what is
expected, why not?

What percentage of GDP is being affected? Is that percentage considered to

GDP: be realistic, and does it align with flood risk data for other similar settings? And
if not, is there a good explanation for this particular situation?

What are the impacts of frequent—that is, every rainy season—events? Does
Media reports: the modeling of very frequent events result in (almost) zero damage, as would
be expected?

As with the hazard assessment, an additional sensitivity analysis should be carried

out for the risk assessment stage. The same principles apply, in that the analysis
investigates the potential error associated with the key parameters or input variables
of the analysis by systematically varying each in turn over a range of possible
values. For the risk analysis, this may include asset types or values as well as the
vulnerability curves for different exposure types. The shape of the vulnerability
curve (or starting point) can significantly affect flood damage values—which are
often based on empirical relationships derived from a small sample of exposure
types (such as building types) and are usually based on an average, or a typical
typology over a given area, and therefore can be very uncertain. Even a simple
check against assumptions, such as the average number of occupants in a given
type of dwelling, may show significant variations in overall “population affected”
figures. Understanding how this uncertainty can affect the final results is important
to the ability to use the risk assessment results with confidence.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 105

Level 2 project experiences highlight the difficulty of risk quantification in these

assignments for lack of data. But among other things, the flood risk metrics are
used to prioritize and justify the locations and level of investments in these areas. If
the level of risk is far overestimated, this might potentially lead to wrong investment
strategies and decisions. Hence, it is important that the risk quantification be
verified at least qualitatively to achieve credible information for selecting and
prioritizing intervention options.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 106

REFERENCES

De Bruijn, K., D. Wagenaar, K. Slager, M. De Bel, and A. Burzel. 2015. “Updated and Improved
Method for Flood Damage Assessment SSM2015 (version 2).” Report for Deltares, Delft,
Netherlands.

Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2008. “Defra Flood and Coastal
Defence Appraisal Guidance: Social Appraisal. Supplementary Note to Operating Authorities:
Assessing and Valuing the Risk to Life from Flooding for Use in Appraisal of Risk Management
Measures.” Defra, Government of the United Kingdom, London. https://assets.publishing.
service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027207/Assess_
and_value_the_risk_to_life_from_flooding_-_use_in_appraisal_of_risk_management_measures.
pdf.

DHS (US Department of Homeland Security). 2016. “Critical Infrastructure Threat Information
Sharing Framework: A Reference Guide for the Critical Infrastructure Community.” Reference
document, DHS, Washington, DC.

DeKay, M. L., and G. H. McClelland. 1993. “Predicting Loss of Life in Cases of Dam Failure
and Flash Flood.” Risk Analysis 13 (2): 193–205.

Gavankar, N. L., and S. K. Ghosh. 2018. “Automatic Building Footprint Extraction from High-
Resolution Satellite Image Using Mathematical Morphology.” European Journal of Remote
Sensing 51 (1): 182–93. doi:10.1080/22797254.2017.1416676.

Giupponi, C., ed. 2021. “A Methodology for the Quantification of Direct and Indirect Tangible
Financial Losses from Natural Disasters.” VIU Papers 08.21, Venice International University, for
Contract 7189620, World Bank, Washington DC.

Graham, W. J. 1999. “A Procedure for Estimating Loss of Life Caused by Dam Failure.”
Dam Safety Office report DSO-99-6, US Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC.

Hallegatte, S. 2015. “The Indirect Costs of Natural Disasters and an Economic Definition of
Macroeconomic Resilience.” Policy Research Working Paper 7357, World Bank, Washington DC.

Hu, Z., C. Huyck, M. Eguchi, and J. Bevington. 2014. “User Guide: Tool for Spatial Inventory
Data Development.” Technical Report 2014-05, Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation,
Pavia, Italy. doi:10.13117/GEM.DATA-CAPTURE.TR2014.05.

Huizinga, J., H. de Moel, and W. Szewczyk. 2017. Global Flood Depth-Damage Functions:
Methodology and the Database with Guidelines. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union. doi:10.2760/16510.

IPET (Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force). 2007. “Performance Evaluation

of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System—Volume VII:
the consequences.” Final IPET report, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 107

Jonkman, S. N. 2004. “Methode voor de bepaling van het aantal slachtoffers ten gevolge
van een grootschalige overstroming” [Method for Determining the Number of Victims
as a Result of a Large-Scale Flood]. Report DWW-2004-042, Rijkswaterstaat DWW, Delft,
the Netherlands.

Jonkman, S. N. 2007. Loss of Life Estimation in Flood Risk Assessment: Theory and Applications.
Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

Kazi, S., I. M. Urrutia Duarte, M. Van Ledden, J. H. Laborie, J. Verschuur, Z. H. Khan, R.

Jongejan, K. T. Lendering, and A. G. Mancheño. 2022. “Bangladesh: Enhancing Coastal
Resilience in a Changing Climate.” Report No. 175641, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Koks, E. E., M. Bockarjova, H. De Moel, and J. C. J. H. Aerts. 2014. “Integrated Direct and
Indirect Flood Risk Modeling: Development and Sensitivity Analysis.” Journal of Risk Analysis 35
(5): 882–900. doi:10.1111/risa.12300.

Lind, N., D. Hartford, and H. Assaf. 2004. “Hydrodynamic Models of Human Instability in a
Flood.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40 (1): 89–96.

McClelland, D. M., and D. S. Bowles. 2002. “Estimating Life Loss for Dam Safety
Risk Assessment: A Review and New Approach.” Institute for Water Resources (IWR)
Report 02-R-3, Institute for Dam Safety Risk Management, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Alexandria, VA.

Papilloud, T., and M. Keiler. 2021. “Vulnerability Patterns of Road Network to Extreme Floods
Based on Accessibility Measures.” Transport and Environment 100: 103045. doi:10.1016/j.
trd.2021.103045.

Ramsbottom, D., S. Wade, V. Bain, M. Hassan, E. Penning-Rowsell, T. Wilson, A. Fernandez,

M. House, and P. Floyd. 2004. “R&D Outputs: Flood Risks to People.” Phase 2.
FD2321/IR2, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/Environment Agency.

Rogelis, M. C. 2016. “Flood Risk in Road Networks.” Technical Notes, Latin America and
Caribbean Region Probabilistic Risk Assessment Program (CAPRA), World Bank, Washings

USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. “Life Loss.” In HEC-FIA Technical Reference
Manual Version 1.0. Washington, DC: USACE.

Watson, D., M. Serrer, and N. Crookshank. 2001. “BC Hydro Life Safety Model: A Two
Dimensional Model for Estimating Dam Breach Survival Probabilities.” Draft technical
report, Canadian Hydraulics Centre, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.

World Bank. 2020. “Designing Flood Resilient Cities. Integrated Approaches for Sustainable
Development: Bima, Manado and Pontianak.” Report prepared by Deltares, ONE Architecture,
Kota Kita, and PT Wiratman for the World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2023. “Flood Risk Assessment and Scenarios Dashboard for the City of Dar es
Salaam and Zanzibar City.” World Bank, Washington, DC.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Flood Risk Assessment 108

ENDNOTES
1 HDX is an open-source platform for sharing data across crises and organizations. Launched

in July 2014, is managed by Center for Humanitarian Data of the United Nations Office for

the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). For more information, see the HDX website:

https://data.humdata.org/.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 109

CHAPTER

EVALUATION OF
INFRASTRUCTURE
INTERVENTIONS

1 2 3 4 5

PROJECT SCOPING HAZARD MODELING RISK MODELING INTERVENTIONS CLOSEOUT

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 110

4.1
INTRODUCTION

Many cities face significant urban flood risk, hampering the economic growth of
these centers and the well-being of their citizens. These risks are caused by many
factors but often include a lack of investments in all types of infrastructure (gray,
green, and blue); limited funding for maintenance; absence of land use planning
and enforcement; and poor governance. These risks are exacerbated by climate
change, which will further stress the malfunctioning systems.

Such issues are often more pronounced in low- and middle-income countries
because of strong urban growth over a short period, resulting in an “adaptation
deficit.” As Noble et al. (2014, 839) frame the situation for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, this deficit is “the gap between the current state of
the system and a state that would minimize adverse impacts from existing climate
conditions and variability.” To overcome this adaptation deficit, evaluating and
prioritizing interventions is a key step, which is often part of a Level 2 assessment.
These interventions are generally then taken forward in more detailed studies to
prepare for implementation.

Evaluation and prioritization of interventions requires analysis of the appropriateness

of specific interventions to reduce the risk of flooding for an urban environment.
Potential solutions to mitigate flood risk are typically multiple, and a portfolio of
approaches is often the end result. For example, a combination of embankments
to protect high-density urban zones in combination with early warning and shelters
for low-density areas and zoning for areas that have not yet been developed may
be the result of this evaluation. In a Level 2 analysis, many options must therefore
be screened in an efficient but also robust way, and special care should be given
to integrating the flood risk analysis and hazard mapping with urban planning and
development.

The appropriateness of interventions depends on a wide variety of factors, but

cost-effectiveness of the investments, the environmental and social impacts, and
sustainability after implementation (for example, sufficient resources and capacity
for operation and maintenance) are important elements. Consideration of the
existing and future uncertainties is essential throughout this process of evaluating
possible interventions to arrive at robust options.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 111

The following questions are relevant to the evaluation of interventions:

?
? ?
Can the proposed
What types of interventions interventions be modeled What are possible future
are possible, and how to select in some way to allow climate and socioeconomic
the most relevant ones? quantification of their scenarios that should be
effectiveness? applied to test the future
effectiveness and robustness
of the interventions?

? ?

What are the benefits and What are the environmental

costs of these interventions, and social impacts?
and are there secondary (or
multiple) benefits and costs
that should be considered?

Throughout the entire process of selection and evaluation of flood risk

management interventions, it is important to recognize that the potential success
of any intervention is strongly interlinked with a well-functioning institutional
setup dealing with urban flood risk management and more broadly with the
urban planning process. In many situations, several agencies are involved with
overlapping mandates, resulting in uncoordinated actions and confusion. Getting
a clear picture of this institutional setup for the specific urban context is therefore
critical. It is also important to understand how potential interventions would fit
within these institutional arrangements and associated planning processes. It may
even be necessary to consider whether further institutional realignment or changes

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 112

may be necessary to ensure that any interventions successfully implemented are

sustainable in the long term.

Stakeholder involvement is therefore crucial during this phase. Stakeholders can

offer unique viewpoints on how interventions could benefit their community,
and the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders increases the likelihood of equitable
outcomes and benefits for all parties (Rözer et al. 2021). Stakeholders can also
help to identify multipurpose solutions. For instance, interventions for urban
flood risk reduction can often address other specific needs in a city environment
such as improving water supply, increasing biodiversity and restoration of urban
ecosystems, expansion of recreation zones, and helping address urban heat
island effects.

A good example in this context is the rehabilitation of the Rio Chiveve Park
in Beira, Mozambique (CES, Salzgitter, and Inros Lackner 2020). This project
started originally as a conventional drainage project but has resulted in not only
an improved drainage situation but also a healthy urban park environment with
increased biodiversity through the restoration of the river ecosystem. This example
highlights how a drainage intervention can offer more than flood risk mitigation and
catalyze livability enhancement of the urban environment.

4.2
IDENTIFICATION OF
INTERVENTIONS

A wide range of interventions can often be defined to reduce the risk of urban
flooding. Clarity about the types and scales of possible interventions to be
considered in the urban flood risk assessment is essential for a good definition of
the scope of the project. The appropriateness of these interventions for a specific
situation depends on the physical and institutional characteristics of the situation.
Various classifications exist to distinguish different types and spatial scales of
interventions. A classification can help stakeholders to understand the wide range
of interventions; it also supports a transparent, informed selection process of
appropriate measures to be further evaluated.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 113

4.2.1 Classification of Structural and

Nonstructural Interventions

Gray, green, and blue structural measures. A useful way to distinguish between
types of interventions is to classify them as structural or nonstructural measures
(figure 4.1). These two types of measures could be further subdivided into different
groups for clarity. For example, structural measures are often classified as gray,
green, and blue measures:

Gray measures Green measures Blue measures

are those that will hold back or divert are those that slow the water down are those that allow flood storage as
water, consisting largely of hard or help absorb it, such as mangrove open water, such as retention basins, by
materials like concrete, rock, or steel regeneration or installation of restoring former wetlands or floodplain
(such as culverts, lined canals, pump bioswales, open green spaces, and landscaping that allows space for
stations, and outlet sluices). urban forests. floodwater without causing damage.

Figure 4.1 Structural versus Nonstructural Interventions

STRUCTURAL NONSTRUCTURAL
INTERVENTIONS INTERVENTIONS

changing behavior and

FOCUS managing floodwaters FOCUS
improving inforamation

Examples: large and small gray, green, blue infrastructure such Examples: policy changes such as implementing setbacks,
as embankments, drainage channels, storage ponds, bioswales, improving early warning systems, and managed retreat
and mangrove restoration

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 114

Green and blue measures are often lumped together as “nature-based solutions”
(NbS), which refers to “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural
or modified ecosystems, which address societal challenges . . . effectively and
adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity
benefits” (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016, xii). Compared with traditional gray
infrastructure, NbS for urban drainage generally come with multiple benefits
including not only flood risk mitigation but also potential contributions to restoring
biodiversity, improving human health, and creating opportunities for recreation,
among others. A useful reference for identification of potential NbS and their costs
and benefits in an urban environment is the “Catalogue of Nature-Based Solutions
for Urban Resilience” (World Bank 2021).

Nonstructural classifications. Nonstructural measures can typically be divided into

■ Land use planning and zoning such as building codes, zoning with
restricted or prescribed uses, and in some extreme cases, managed retreat
where land is allowed to become unusable for any form of development or
urban use;
■ Flood forecasting, early warning, and emergency response, which provide
response agencies as well as the public with actionable information in a
timely and appropriate way that will reduce the impact of flooding and will
include raising awareness, response planning, and evacuation; and
■ Postdisaster recovery such as adaptive social protection, cash transfers, or
insurance schemes.

Both structural and nonstructural measures have strong links with urban planning
since these interventions (if structural) need space or require enforcement
(for example, of zoning laws). Hence, evaluation of the measures requires the
integration of urban planning with the flood risk analysis.

In practice, however, the exact delineation between the various types of structural
and nonstructural interventions is not always easy, and often the best approach is a
combination of measures. This can make decision-making and investment option
selection complex, and a simple cost-benefit approach may need to be supported
by multicriteria analysis.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 115

4.2.2 Classification by Spatial Scale

Another useful way to distinguish interventions is by looking at the spatial scale of

the interventions:

■ Catchment scale
■ City scale
■ Neighborhood scale
■ Building scale.

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate two scale levels—catchment and urban scale—with
typical possible structural and nonstructural interventions at these scale levels to
manage flood risk. Catchment-scale solutions relevant for urban flood risk may
be the construction of upstream reservoirs or better land use planning to reduce
and delay runoff from the upstream catchment (figure 4.2). Examples of city-
scale measures are early warning and land use zoning within the city perimeter
or building embankments to reduce the probability of flooding from the river or
the sea (figure 4.3). Neighborhood-level measures include improvement of local
drainage or delay of runoff through green roofs or better infiltration. Last but not
least, buildings could be raised, or floodproofing of buildings can be considered.

Spatial scales and interventions can overlap, such as in the case of an early warning
system that could be implemented at the catchment level but may also provide
specific information at the neighborhood level. Hence, the classification should be
considered as a tool to help guide discussions with the stakeholders, and a clear
and concise definition of each intervention remains important.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 116

Figure 4.2 Catchment-Scale Interventions

Business and government

continuity planning
Flood storage:
dams and Flood insurance,
reservoirs compensation, and
tax relief

Emergency planning, rescue,

damage avoidance actions,
Infiltration:
and temporary shelter
forest
plantation

Urban
scale

Groundwater
management

Wetlands and
environmental
buffers

Early
warning
systems

Barrier and barrage systems

Source: Jha, Bloch, and Lomond 2012. ©World Bank.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 117

Figure 4.3 Urban-Scale Interventions

Land use Evacuation

planning: planning
flood zones

Flood defenses:
rock revetments
Barrier and barrage
systems: floodgate

Conveyance: relief
channel

Flood storage:
reservoirs, lakes

Early warning
systems

Source: Jha, Bloch, and Lomond 2012. © World Bank.

The examples at different spatial scales (figures 4.2 and 4.3) highlight the fact
that many different types of interventions can reduce flood risk, but if they are not
well defined in terms of both spatial coverage and scale, they could easily lead to
significant scope creep of the study and require far more detail than the Level 2 urban
flood risk assessment would normally provide. For example, flood forecasting and
early warning systems are known to be effective interventions. However, they can be
difficult to represent within a flood risk assessment framework and may require quite
sophisticated analysis to quantify the benefits as accurately as, say, building a flood
relief scheme. In some instances, it may be adequate to simply acknowledge flood
forecasting and early warning systems as important nonstructural measures to reduce
flood risk; they could be cited in flood risk management interventions and identified as
ongoing or future flood forecasting and early warning studies that will be referenced.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 118

4.3
SELECTION OF
INTERVENTIONS

In a Level 2 assessment, the initial screening and selection of interventions with

potential for the urban context is generally done based on qualitative considerations
and indicators. Engaging stakeholders but also leveraging expert knowledge in
this stage is important to ensure that all possible interventions are evaluated and
carefully considered.

A shared vision among stakeholders generated at the conceptual level is important

at the initial stage of identification and selection of potential interventions. This
vision may include a range of possible ways to manage the risk from flooding
now and in the future; ideas of what an acceptable level of risk would be; how to
address residual risks; whether there is a potential opportunity for resolving other
urban needs through a multipurpose solution; and how the proposed interventions
fit into the institutional setup. This vision will need to be based on a thorough
understanding of the functioning of the urban environment with specific emphasis
on the magnitude and distribution of flood hazard and risk both now and in
the future.

4.3.1 Defining the Indicators

Indicators are the quantifiable outcomes of the proposed intervention or investment

if it were to be successfully implemented. These outcomes (or indicators) would
be directly measurable or countable once the intervention was in place (given
sufficient time to monitor how it performs and gather the necessary data). However,
to compare and select the optimal intervention from a long list of possible
interventions before they are implemented, the indicators must be assessed in as
accurate and robust a way as reasonably practical given the data and detail of the
Level 2 assessment. This normally requires some form of modeling or geographic
information system (GIS) analytical processing to quantify these indicators.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 119

These indicators must be sensibly defined to genuinely reflect the benefits (either
direct or indirect and including multiple or cumulative benefits) that are likely to
accrue as a direct result of the interventions. A well-selected, well-enumerated
framework of indicators can help support a transparent and evidence-based
decision-making process. Such a framework must be developed on a case-by-case
basis, reflecting not only the primary aims of the interventions but also the local
stakeholders’ secondary preferences and needs.

These indicators generally include technical, economical, ecological, and social

aspects. Typical indicators may include the intervention’s technical complexity and
adaptability (sometimes referred to as “achievability”); the total costs, benefits, and
benefit-cost ratio; the reduction in number of the affected population (specified
for different social, age, and gender groups); the amount of land acquisition and
resettlement; changes in biodiversity, water conservation and supply; changes in
recreation opportunities; and improved access of transportation routes, among
others. A key indicator for any flood risk management intervention is its level of risk
reduction. For structural interventions, this is generally governed by the adopted
“protection level” or “design standard,” often expressed in terms of an event
return period.

Table 4.1 lists return periods for different types of flood protection infrastructure
(modified after Ponce 2008). For densely populated urban environments, the
commonly adopted return period to protect against coastal and riverine floods
across the world ranges from 100 to 10,000 years. Urban drainage systems
that provide flood protection against local rainfall events are generally designed
for event return periods from 5 to 100 years. It is common engineering practice
to apply these return periods for the situation at the end of the lifetime of the
infrastructure (for example, after 50 years), through which climate change effects
(such as increased rainfall, or higher sea levels) are appropriately accounted for in
the infrastructure design.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 120

Table 4.1 Indicative Values for Selection of Return Periods of

Structural Interventions

PURPOSE OF TYPE OF PROJECT OR FEATURE RETURN PERIOD

INTERVENTION (YEARS)

Infrastructure for coastal and Embankments (low risk with low concentration of population) 10–25
river events

Embankments (medium risk) 25–100

Embankments (high risk with dense population) 100–10,000

Floodplain development (low risk) 25–50

Floodplain development (high risk) 100

Infrastructure for local pluvial Urban drainage (low risk: up to 100 ha) 2–10
events

Urban drainage (medium risk: 100–1,000 ha) 10–50

Urban drainage (more than 1,000 ha) 50–100

Other infrastructure Bridge design (piers) 100–500

Principal spillways (dams) 25–100

Emergency spillways 100–10,000 (PMP)

Minor road 5–10

Major roads 10–50

Source: Modified after Ponce 2008.

Note: ha = hectares; PMP = probable maximum precipitation.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 121

4.3.2 Clarifying Design Standards

In a Level 2 assessment, clarity about the targeted design standard(s) for the
protection against the flood hazard(s) under consideration is important because
it drives both the benefits (“avoided damages”) and the costs of the interventions.
The choice is ultimately a policy decision on not only what is feasible within the
budget and other constraints but also what is acceptable in terms of remaining
risk for a specific context. Some countries have a system of established (or even
legally adopted, as in the Netherlands) flood protection standards for different
types of infrastructure systems. These standards are often derived from a mix of
considerations including economic costs and benefits, individual and societal
safety, and risk perception (see examples in Kazi et al. 2022).

Whether these standards exist and whether they should be adhered to in a Level 2
assignment should always be checked. In many other countries, however, these
standards are defined on a project-by-project basis and are derived more iteratively
during the programming of interventions. In that case, generic international
guidelines (such as the Eurocodes)1 can be used as a first step, but these should be
tailored to the current and future local context in discussion with the stakeholders,
and further iteration may be required during and after the Level 2 assignment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 122

drainage pathways; limited funding for more pump capacity as well as more
BOX 4.1 maintenance; clogging by solid waste, conveyance capacity in the drainage
siltation, and plastics; and a fragmented system itself. The study has also
Addressing the Climate governance structure. recommended a set of nonstructural
Adaptation Deficit in interventions including improved
Dhaka, Bangladesh To remedy this situation, detailed solid waste management and general
modeling of the drainage system in maintenance of the conveyance system.
An important aim of a flood hazard and around the city has been carried In addition, alternative and more nature-
and risk assessment is to highlight the out for existing and future scenarios to based solutions to delay, divert, and
importance of additional investments in identify the urban drainage priorities and detain runoff have been proposed to
structural and nonstructural interventions investment needs. These results were create a more robust drainage system.
to increase the resilience against floods. used to assess not only the damage
Exploring a wide array of interventions to the urban built environment and The study has clearly highlighted the
and defining effective strategies with a infrastructure but also the impacts importance of implementing additional
sound rationale is essential to support on the health and incomes of Dhaka investments to close the adaptation
the dialogue with decision-makers to residents and daily migrant workers. deficit. It also revealed that investments
address the current adaptation deficit The study explored both structural and to address this deficit will pay off
and future climate risks. The study on nonstructural measures to manage substantially by reducing future damages
urban floods in Dhaka has addressed the risk of flooding and tackle the root and losses. This study greatly benefited
this in a comprehensive way and causes of the drainage challenges. from the involvement and contributions
has clearly highlighted the need for Because undeveloped land is scarce of many stakeholders from Bangladesh.
investments to close the adaptation in Dhaka, the conveyance-centric These stakeholders have provided
deficit (Dasgupta et al. 2015). approach with mainly pipes, canals, and valuable inputs on the existing drainage
pumps has been considered appropriate issues, the hydrological analysis,
Dhaka, the Bangladesh capital, is one of for this setting. It is necessary to current plans, and cost estimations
the world’s rapidly growing megacities. further enlarge this capacity by adding for adaptation.
Populated with over 20 million people,
it is located in central Bangladesh’s
Flooding in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna river
delta and has a tropical monsoon
climate. The city suffers from chronic
underinvestment in infrastructure,
including the lack of a well-functioning
drainage system. Urban floods and
waterlogging therefore occur frequently
following intense rainfall events in the
monsoon season every year, bringing
city activities to a standstill. During
monsoon season, high river levels
prevent gravity drainage through the
sluice gates, and the drainage of the city
primarily depends on the performance
efficiency of the drainage pumps and
its internal drainage system. The root
causes of the drainage issues are
multifaceted—with the main culprits
being strong urban growth in recent Source: © S M Mehedi Hasan / World Bank.
decades without consideration for

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 123

4.4
MODELING POTENTIAL
INTERVENTIONS

Once a range of potential interventions has been identified and a framework of

indicators established to further select appropriate interventions, the next step is
often to begin the process of defining the short list of possible interventions in
more detail in terms of the likely structures, layout, dimensions, and so on, which
will enable a comparison of outline costs and expected benefits. Typically, a simple
single solution will not be sufficient to resolve the problem or may prove to be
unsustainable, and a mix of measures may often provide the most effective and
sustainable solution. These need to be identified and assessed in combination to
ensure the appropriate balance.

4.4.1 Advantage of Direct, Location-Specific

Modeling

In defining an optimal set of interventions, it can sometimes be helpful to start

with specific packages of interventions to understand the potential and impacts of
various strategies. It may also be useful to start with extreme implementations of the
interventions to help clarify not only how effective they could be but also what the
negative impacts might be. In an urban setting with a river flowing through the city,
potential (extreme) strategies that could reduce the risk include:

■ Build embankments and floodwalls to protect against flood levels

■ Widen and deepen the river to lower the flood levels
■ Acquire the land in the flood zone and resettle the population in this zone.

Once the advantages and disadvantages are considered in a qualitative way (that
is, typically without analytical work), a more balanced mix of measures can be taken
forward and evaluated in more detail using modeling tools with quantification of the
appropriate set of indicators.

In the framework of urban flood risk assessments, the avoided damages and
affected people are the most commonly used direct benefits used as indicators

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 124

of the proposed interventions. To quantify the direct benefits of a proposed

intervention for current and future scenarios, it is possible to adjust the damage
frequency curve for a certain area by assuming that a certain intervention provides
a certain level of protection (say, up to a 10-year or 100-year event). However,
this approach has limitations, and despite its strategic usefulness, it requires
the damage frequency relationship to be based solely on the exposure that will
benefit from the intervention. It also fails to reflect the potential benefits from the
intervention during events above the design level—for example, a flood defense
embankment that will fully protect a community up to a 10-year event but will also
reduce the amount of flooding that would reach the community under a 20-year
flood event and beyond. There may also be benefits to wider communities that may
not be directly protected by the intervention and would therefore not be included
but may nonetheless receive some benefit under certain conditions. For example,
an embankment designed to fully protect a community may also have partial
benefits to others by reducing if not preventing the flooding to them.

It is therefore recommended that if the intervention can be reflected through direct

modeling in some locally specific, realistic, and meaningful way, assessments of
risk with and without the intervention are fully modeled and compared to provide
a more realistic estimate of the benefits accruing. This not only enables a direct
comparison of the risk with and without the intervention but also reflects the
residual risk—showing the spatial distribution of the effects as well as whether, and
where, any negative impacts may occur in other parts of the catchment.

4.4.2 Modeling by Type of Intervention

It is usually possible to reflect commonly adopted interventions in some way

through modeling—and by introducing modifications to the setup of the hazard
(Chapter 2) and risk models (Chapter 3) for the baseline situation—as follows (either
individually or in combination):

Land use changes

that increase or decrease the impermeable surfaces in an area will change the amount
of infiltration that will take place and can significantly alter the volume of runoff created
within an urban area. Meanwhile, changes in the drainage characteristics—such as
improvements to drainage systems or simply allowing rainfall landing on roofs to run
off into drainage system or directly onto roads or other bare surfaces—will dramatically
increase the rate of runoff.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 125

Urban greening Sustainable drainage systems Large-scale green, blue, and gray
such as the introduction of urban such as rainwater harvesting, interventions
forests and changing farming soakaways, permeable paving, for increased storage, attenuation,
practices, among others, can be retention and infiltration areas, and and discharge capacity—such as
represented in two ways: One is others attempt to replicate natural restoration of wetlands; upstream
through the hydrological stage by processes. These can therefore be reservoirs; river diversion, deepening,
decreasing or increasing infiltration simulated in much the same way as or widening; new or realigned
losses and increasing baseflow. The land use change. embankments; and pump stations—
other is by altering friction coefficients can be represented by (1) imposing
in the hydraulic model to reflect the feature or multiple features onto
changing runoff rates. the DTM that underlies the two-
dimensional (2D) model domain, or
(2) changing cross section profiles
in a one-dimensional (1D) part of
Pumps or weirs Improved maintenance works the model.
are often represented as a 1D such as regular dredging, cutting
element within a model and have a vegetation, and removing garbage
specific module within the modeling from drainage systems can be
software to represent them in detail. represented by changing cross Increased community resilience
Where storage and attenuation sections (for example, dredging to through flood forecasting, early
are considered outside of the deepen the channel) or changing warning, and emergency response;
direct model domain, the changes roughness coefficients to perhaps property-based protection; and
can be represented through the represent cutting vegetation. This community planning and awareness,
hydrology (that is, adjusting the inflow approach will represent more or although less tangible, can be
hydrograph shape) and applied either less flow through the modeled reflected through the risk modeling
at a point inside the model domain or drainage system. process by changing vulnerability
as a boundary condition at the edge of curves or other aspects of the
the model such as a pumped system exposure data. For example, one
that discharges directly into the sea. could reduce the value of contents
that would be damaged during a
flood to reflect the community’s
response to a flood warning. Although
difficult to quantify, these types of
Enhanced flood forecasting and early warning interventions can sometimes be more
can be assessed with well-established, often empirical methods for valuing the easily reflected on a larger scale, using
benefit in the literature that could be employed. This provides a quantified benefit broad assumptions and principles
in terms of a likely value rather than an absolute value. Some caution should that have been demonstrated using
be taken when attributing the benefit to a single part of the forecasting, early empirical relationships.
warning, and response chain, because it is easy to double-count benefits or
overestimate them.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 126

4.4.3 Importance of Robustness Analysis

A more sophisticated analysis, to gain deeper insight into how uncertainties affect
the decision-making around interventions, is a robustness analysis (for example,
Hallegatte et al. 2012; Sayers, Galloway, and Hall 2012). This analysis quantifies
the extent to which the performance of interventions is robust for future (deep)
uncertainties. Whether or not such an analysis is useful and of added value
depends on the specific case. If there are large uncertainties regarding future
climate change conditions and/or socioeconomic scenarios, then incorporating
a robustness analysis as part of a Level 2 assessment can be useful to quantify
the extent to which the performance of the intervention(s) is robust to future
(deep) uncertainties.

For this analysis, a full range of possible climate conditions and socioeconomic
development must be considered. Various metrics can test the robustness of
interventions (see, for example, McPhail et al. 2018). Interventions that perform well
under a wide range of possible future scenarios are preferable to interventions that
may generate large benefits for specific future scenarios but do not perform well for
other scenarios. Climate change scenarios and socioeconomic scenarios should be
based on literature—for example, existing development plans and regional climate
projections. Regional climate projections should use appropriate parameters of
change when applied to flood risk management.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 127

BOX 4.2 Flooding in the Urbanized Area of the N’Djili River Basin in Kinshasa

Testing the Robustness

of Different
Interventions in N’Djili
River, Democratic
Republic of Congo

A Level 2 assessment for the N’Djili

Basin in Kinshasa has been a good
example of testing the robustness of
different solutions in view of large
future uncertainties. In this assessment,
the urbanized part of the N’Djili
River catchment in Kinshasa was
the focal area.

The capital of Democratic Republic of Source: City of Kinshasa.

Congo is poised to become the largest
megacity in Africa by 2030, being
the fastest growing urban system in In the modeling approach, special They included an upstream storage
Central Africa. The N’Djili River exposes attention was paid to the scenarios for basin, downstream levees, resizing
the surrounding communities in Kinshasa future risk mapping. The socioeconomic various bridge crossings and floodplain
to consequences of flooding and erosion and land use development of the sections, and resettlement options.
of surface soil. Recent extreme events, city in particular are uncertain in this A set of 25 alternatives were evaluated
such as the one in 2015, caused many fast-growing city. Thus, very different against the three representative future
fatalities, destroyed property (with and contrasting land use scenarios scenarios. Economic, social, and
losses in the millions of US dollars), and have been generated, from planned to environmental benefits were evaluated
affected the water supply system in this unplanned organic growth. To capture with various indicators (such as the plan
catchment (World Bank 2019, 2021). this uncertainty, a set of 45 scenarios with lowest regret, the highest maximum
was developed based on three different performance, and the highest average
The urban part of the N’Djili watershed climate change scenarios, three performance) providing useful insight in
covers an area of around 70 square socioeconomic development scenarios, promising solutions for more in-depth
kilometers and is around 12 kilometers and five land use options. The risk feasibility studies.
long, while the whole watershed analysis for the baseline conditions
covers an area of around 2,190 square showed that these 45 scenarios The assessment for the N’Djili River
kilometers. The urban watershed is generated three distinct groups of risk is part of a wider support to the
characterized by high population density profiles. Out of these groups, three Democratic Republic of Congo and has
and growth, which is cause of increasing representative scenarios were selected been informing the ongoing dialogue to
land use change, informal settlement, for further analysis of the interventions. increase urban resilience in Kinshasa.
pollution, erosion, and disturbance
of water runoff patterns. A detailed Next, a long list of interventions was
1D-2D modeling exercise with detailed created based on the insights from
topography data of the entire urban area the flood hazard and risk mapping.
has been set up to perform flood hazard These interventions were tested
and risk mapping of the N’Djili River. individually but also in combination.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 128

4.5
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF
INTERVENTIONS

4.5.1 Costs

Defining the costs of interventions is often an important part of a Level 2

assessment and should be carried out as accurately as the data allow. Since the
detailed design of the interventions will not be known at this stage, the estimation
of costs will still be quite uncertain. It is important to recognize these uncertainties
when the costs are used for any planning purposes or used in any form of cost-
benefit analysis.

Costs for structural interventions must include both initial capital costs and ongoing,
long-term maintenance costs. Capital costs are spent to build the intervention, and
these could be not only construction costs but also land acquisition costs. After
completion of the intervention, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs will recur
every year. These costs can involve regular maintenance works like grass cutting,
painting or small repairs, and operating costs (for example, manpower for operating
a structure, fuel, power, and so on). They may also include more significant
maintenance costs that occur less frequently but can still be annualized for the
purpose of the analysis.

4.5.1.1 Capital Costs

The capital costs of interventions can be quantified in different ways. Depending on
the level of detail in a Level 2 assessment, two ways are often possible:

Using other project costs and scaling these Using unit costs for different materials—
appropriately— for example, by volume (cubic meters) for excavation, fill,
for example, by volume (cubic meters) for reservoirs, by or concrete; by area (hectares) for mangroves; or by area
area (hectares) for mangroves, by length (meters) for (square meters) for land acquisition. Other costs of design
embankments, or by volumetric rate (cubic meters per and supervision can be added based on information
second) for pump stations about these costs from similar assignments.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 129

For certain interventions, there are some country-specific unit cost estimates,
such as for embankments (Hillen et al. 2010) and for a wide range of flood
adaptation measures, including floodproofing of buildings, flood protection, beach
nourishment and dunes, NbS for coastal ecosystems, channel management and
NbS for riverine systems, and urban drainage (Aerts 2018; World Bank 2021).
However, it will always be required to check any existing unit cost estimate against
local market conditions.

Depending on the situation, other direct costs could surface, which can be
significant in the total costs of the interventions. Land acquisition or resettlement
costs can be a substantial part of the costs, especially if the interventions need
significant space in a densely built city environment. These costs are often location-
specific and can only be defined based on local information.

4.5.1.2 O&M Costs

The inclusion of O&M costs is essential in the total cost estimates of interventions
because these can be significant if the lifetime of the construction is accounted for.
In a Level 2 assessment, these annual costs are often expressed as a percentage
of the capital expenditures based on reference projects or expert judgment. The
percentage depends on many factors, including the type of structure, its method of
construction, and the environment in which these structures are present.

Aerts (2018) provides a comprehensive overview of different intervention types

for flood management with indicative values of maintenance costs based on an
extensive review. Coastal and riverine flood control structures with high O&M
costs include pump stations, storm surge barriers, or sea dikes with revetments (for
which, for example, annual O&M costs 1-5 percent of capital investment), whereas
grass-covered embankments in a relatively calm environment need much less
maintenance (0.01-1 percent). The maintenance costs of urban drainage range from
0.5 percent to 10 percent of investment based on this review.

4.5.2 Benefits

A Level 2 analysis can use various quantitative risk metrics to estimate the benefits
of the interventions. Commonly applied risk metrics are the reduction in economic
risk and reduction in affected people. The economic benefits (that is, risk reduction)
of interventions are a yearly recurring effect (figure 4.4), and the net present value
(NPV) of this benefit can be determined using an appropriate discount rate.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 130

The costs and benefits can be used in a cost-benefit analysis to derive relevant
economic metrics such as the internal rate of return or the NPV, with metrics
being influenced by the discount rate chosen. Because the various inputs of
such an analysis are inevitably uncertain, it is not only important to have carried
out sensitivity testing throughout all the various stages in the analytical process
(to understand the likely range of possible results as well as the scale of the
uncertainty in these inputs), but it is also often advisable to investigate uncertainty
in the parameter choices for estimating benefits and costs. For example, this could
include reduction in damage, discount rate, capital and O&M costs, as well as
potentially different future socioeconomic or climate scenarios.

For traditional cost-benefits analysis, risk is valued in expected annual damage

(EAD) or average annual losses (AAL), and the risk reduction benefits are valued as
the reduction of EAD or AAL. This approach does not consider the risk aversion of
individuals who may place a higher value on risk reduction (especially relevant for
individuals who are highly vulnerable to floods). Not factoring in individuals with
higher risk aversion may lead to the recommendation of measures that favor those
who are already better off. Therefore, it is recommended that the benefit-cost ratios
and other relevant economic metrics of interventions based on such assessment
be expressed as a range, which is always preferred above a single number.
This promotes understanding of what the variation in benefit-cost ratio could be,
depending on certain assumptions and how likely it is that the intervention will be
economically justified under a range of scenarios.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 131

Figure 4.4 Schematic Representation of Risk Reduction from a Structural Flood Risk Intervention

DAMAGE ($)

Risk reduction R

New
Existing protection
protection level level RETURN
PERIOD (YR)

DISCOUNTED Pr
e-
int Net present value
ANNUAL RISK erv
en of the risk reduction
(IN $/YR) tio
n
Pos
t-in
terv
entio
n

NOW YEAR

Note: In this figure, risk reduction equates to the economic benefits, on a yearly recurring
basis, of structural flood-risk interventions such as improving a drainage system or raising
an embankment.

In addition, focusing only on a reduction in damages will not provide a full picture
of costs and benefits. For example, richer areas may be favored for protection
since they have a higher amount of hard assets at risk. Therefore, the breadth of
the benefit analysis should go beyond traditional cost-benefit analysis as outlined
above and also assess, where practical, additional co-benefits. To the extent
possible, additional environmental and socioeconomic benefits (co-benefits)
derived from the solutions, such as livelihoods or jobs generated, poverty reduction,
improvement in urban air quality, less cooling usage, carbon sequestration, and
increase in livability (such as access to public spaces, leisure, and the like) should
be included meaningfully within the prioritization process. The impact of any

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 132

intervention on economic and urban growth should also be assessed and careful
consideration given to the discount rate employed.

The aim of a Level 2 assessment is not to develop a detailed cost-benefit

analysis but rather to provide policy makers with enough information for an initial
comparison of potential investment scenarios and at least provide a ranking of
measures that includes their prefeasibility effectiveness and costs under a wide
range of potential future scenarios.

4.6
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIAL IMPACTS

Structural and nonstructural interventions may generate environmental and social

impacts, which can be very important for the overall feasibility of the solutions.
During a Level 2 assessment, it is therefore fundamental to understand the main
environmental and social implications of potential interventions and which options
exist to reduce the unwanted impacts as much as reasonably possible through
the design of the interventions, but also to maximize the creation of additional
environmental and social benefits.

4.6.1 Resettlement and Land Acquisition

Two of the major impacts of structural interventions in any urban environment are
resettlement and land acquisition.

Resettlement. Urban environments are generally densely urbanized without much

space available for often-large green or gray infrastructure like retention basins,
swales, new drainage canals, or outlet structures. People may live near existing
drainage systems or embankments where simply widening or enlarging these
structures may cause direct impacts such as loss of land and need for resettlement.
In addition, a substantial percentage of the urban population in many cities may live

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 133

in informal settlements, which also tend to be relatively flood-prone areas where

interventions are likely to be required.

Resettlement of the population is a complex and sensitive issue and is therefore

generally avoided. If it is unavoidable, it is critical, at an early stage, to generate a
clear and detailed picture of the scope for resettlement for a specific solution with
detailed mapping of the population characteristics and their status. Also, a layout
of the required steps and time necessary to complete this entire government
process—as well as an understanding of its risks—is essential for the overall
feasibility assessment of options requiring resettlement (Correa, Ramírez, and
Sanahuja 2011).

Land acquisition. Similarly, structural interventions may require land for

construction of new infrastructure or a sediment disposal site for polluted dredged
sediments from the drainage system. New drainage channels or widening existing
ones require strips of land to be acquired throughout a dense urban fabric.
Also, green infrastructure solutions such as retention areas often need large
surface areas to be effective. Acquiring the land for these interventions can be
time-consuming owing to the absence of detailed and up-to-date land ownership
registers, a complex government process of payments through various layers of
government, and the costs of acquiring land can be high.

The discussion above highlights that minimizing the scope for resettlement and/
or land acquisition is generally favored during the search for feasible options.
Some practical examples of ways to do this at different spatial scales are to enlarge
drainage channels by replacing slopes with vertical walls or to reduce inflow by
taking measures upstream of the city (forestation, upstream retention, and so on)
and redirecting flows to other less urbanized areas or creating bypass systems.

That being said, unavoidable resettlement and land acquisition can also be
converted into a development opportunity for the communities at risk to improve
their livelihoods. Roquet et al. (2017) provide examples of successful practices in
urban resettlement and land acquisition for urban development projects.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 134

4.6.2 Other Environmental and Development

Impacts

Other types of impacts may be encountered during a Level 2 assignment.

Water availability
Structural solutions for reducing flood risk may affect other water-related aspects
of the system. For instance, dredging may increase the river’s flow capacity during
floods and thus be positive from a flood risk perspective but also lower its water
levels during the dry season. Poorly considered dredging can therefore have a
detrimental effect on water resource availability and agricultural activities given a
lower groundwater table in areas surrounding the river.

Sediment and debris pollution

Dredging is a commonly used response to flooding from rivers and watercourses,
particularly where the channel is seen to be filling up with sediment. This approach
should always be carried out with caution because it can often result in unexpected
or even negative consequences. For example, by simply dredging a section of river
that is thought to be causing flooding, the result is a deeper but usually slower-
moving stretch of river flow. As a result, the next time it floods, this section acts like a
sediment trap because it has slowed down the flow rates, encouraging sedimentation.

Furthermore, dredging a section of river inevitably creates a steeper bed slope

at the upstream end of the dredged section and locally increases velocity there,
which often results in increased erosion at that point, in turn deepening the channel
further and moving the deepened channel upstream along with the localized
high-velocity section. If this continues to travel upstream, it can have serious
consequences on any upstream structures (bridges or embankments).

The downstream end of the dredging must also be carefully considered because
the water level along a stretch of river is most often controlled by a downstream
feature, which may not be evident during normal flows, but during a flood, the
upstream water levels are likely to be controlled by a bridge or some other solid
feature. No amount of dredging will increase the flood flows that the downstream
feature will allow to pass, and so the flood levels in the area will remain the same as
before dredging.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 135

Vegetation removal and dredging of drainage canals can also produce large
amounts of sediments, debris, and other materials. These sediments may well be
polluted in an urban environment and thus must be treated with care to avoid
negative impacts on population health and the surrounding environment. If the
sediments are not polluted, then direct distribution of sediments in rivers or at sea or
reuse (for example, for construction purposes) may be an option, but the impacts of
these activities must be carefully assessed and minimized.

However, it is bad practice to leave the sediment permanently along the riverbank.
This can form semipermanent embankments that may alter the flow dynamics
both upstream and downstream and potentially make flooding worse elsewhere.
It can also create the false impression that the areas behind the sediment banks
are now protected and are safe to live in. This can be a grave mistake because
the unconsolidated sediment—likely consisting of fine, highly erodible particles—
may appear solid and stable but may be highly susceptible to sudden failure and
potentially rapid inundation of the floodplain that was formerly open but now
heavily developed.

Urban development challenges

Flood risk management may also affect urban development. If areas become
better protected against flood risk because of structural interventions, these
areas are likely to become more attractive for further urbanization and economic
activities. The same holds for NbS in flood risk management (such as urban parks
or restoration of natural drains in urban environments), which may generate
positive environmental and societal impacts. It will therefore be important to make
a good fit between the proposed solutions and a broader strategy of sustainable
urban development.

4.6.3 Applicability in a Level 2 Assessment

Although a Level 2 assessment does not aim to do a full environmental and

social impact assessment, it should provide some baseline information on the
likely positive and adverse effects of proposed solutions. It should also look at the
governing frameworks for these assessments and align the analysis with these
frameworks for further analysis. With the potential solutions in mind, an initial scan
may be adopted to generate a list of critical environmental and social aspects.
These aspects can then be further described for each solution under consideration.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 136

The flood risk assessment outputs may help quantify some of these impacts.
For example, the hydrological or hydraulic models applied in the risk assessment
can provide insight into the changes in flows and water quantities (due to reservoirs
or storage upstream, for example) or the land required for expansion of urban
drainage system. In other cases, a more qualitative assessment may be needed to
assess the potential impact.

REFERENCES

Aerts, J. C. J. H. 2018. “A Review of Cost Estimates for Flood Adaptation.” Water 10 (11): 1646.
doi:10.3390/w10111646.

CES, Salzgitter, and Inros Lackner (CES Consulting Engineers, Salzgitter GmbH, and Inros
Lackner SE). 2020. “Upscaling Nature-based Flood Protection in Mozambique’s Cities: Lessons
Learnt from Beira.” Consultancy report for World Bank, Washington, DC.

Cohen-Shacham, E., G. Walters, C. Janzen, and S. Maginnis eds. 2016. Nature-Based Solutions
to Address Global Societal Challenges. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation
of Nature.

Correa, E., F. Ramírez, and H. Sanahuja. 2011. “Populations at Risk of Disaster: A Resettlement
Guide.” Guide, World Bank and Global Facility for Disaster Risk and Recovery, Washington, DC.

Dasgupta, S., A. Zaman, S. Roy, M. Huq, S. Jahan, and A. Nishat. 2015. Urban Flooding of
Greater Dhaka in a Changing Climate: Building Local Resilience to Disaster Risk. Directions in
Development Series. Washington DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0710-7.

Hallegatte, S., A. Shah, R. Lempert, C. Brown, and S. Gill. 2012. “Investment Decision Making
under Deep Uncertainty: Application to Climate Change.” Policy Research Working Paper 6193,
World Bank, Washington, DC.

Hillen, M. M., S. N. Jonkman, W. Kanning, M. Kok, M. A. Geldenhuys, and M. J. F. Stive. 2010.

“Coastal Defence Cost Estimates: Case Study of the Netherlands, New Orleans and Vietnam.”
Communications on Hydraulic and Geotechnical Engineering 2010-01, Delft University of
Technology, Delft, Netherlands.

Jha, A. K., R. Bloch, and J. Lamond. 2012. Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban
Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Kazi, S., I. M. Urrutia Duarte, M. Van Ledden, J. H. Laborie, J. Verschuur, Z. H. Khan, R.

Jongejan, K. T. Lendering, and A. G. Mancheño. 2022. “Bangladesh: Enhancing Coastal
Resilience in a Changing Climate.” Report No. 175641, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 137

McPhail, C., H. R. Maier, J. H. Kwakkel, M. Giuliani, A. Castelletti, and S. Westra. 2018.

“Robustness Metrics: How Are They Calculated, When Should They Be Used and Why Do They
Give Different Results?” Earth’s Future 6 (2): 169–91. doi:10.1002/2017EF000649.

Noble, I. R., S. Huq, Y. A. Anokhin, J. Carmin, D. Goudou, F. P. Lansigan, B. Osman-Elasha,

and A. Villamizar. 2014. “Adaptation Needs and Options.” In Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir,
M. Chatterjee, et al., 833–68. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ponce, V. M. 2008. “Q&A on the Return Period to Be Used for Design.” Publication,
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, San Diego State University
(accessed September 28, 2022), ponce.sdsu.edu/return_period.html.

Roquet, V., L. Bornholdt, K. Sirker, and J. Lukic. 2017. Urban Land Acquisition and Involuntary
Resettlement: Linking Innovation and Local Benefits. Directions in Development Series.
Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0980-4.

Rözer, V., S. Surminski, F. Laurien, C. McQuistan, and R. Mechler. 2021. “Multiple Resilience
Dividends at the Community Level: A Comparative Study on Disaster Risk Reduction
Interventions in Different Countries.” Working Paper No. 357, Grantham Research Institute on
Climate Change and the Environment, London.

Sayers, P. B., G. E. Galloway, and J. W. Hall. 2012. Flood Risk: Robust Decision-Making under
Uncertainty – Towards Adaptive and Resilient Flood Risk Management Infrastructure. London:
ICE Publishing.

World Bank. 2021. “A Catalogue of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Resilience.” Report,
World Bank, Washington, DC.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Evaluation of Infrastructure Interventions 138

ENDNOTES

1 The Eurocodes are the 10 European standards specifying how structural design should be
conducted within the European Union. See https://www.en-standard.eu/eurocodes/.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 139

CHAPTER

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
ISSUES AND CLOSEOUT

1 2 3 4 5

5
PROJECT SCOPING HAZARD MODELING RISK MODELING INTERVENTIONS CLOSEOUT

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 140

5.1
BID PREPARATION AND
SELECTION

It may be possible (or preferable) to carry out simple Level 2 hazard and risk
assessments in-house within the organization, but more usually, a consultancy
firm (or occasionally a consortium providing specialist skills or resources) will be
required to carry out the work. Regardless of the approach, it is necessary to
develop a terms of reference (ToR) for the assignment to ensure all parties are clear
on the objectives, scope, and expected outcomes. The ToR need not be a detailed
document for an in-house assignment. However, when commissioning a firm to
carry out the work, the ToR will form a legal part of the contract and must be clear,
specific, and accurate.

The ToR should provide sufficient information and detail for tendering firms to
understand the background and context of the assignment and the likely scope of
work involved. It must include a clear statement of the objectives and intended use
of the study results. This is an important part of the ToR; tendering firms will use it
not only to help understand the overall expectations of the assignment but also to
define what a successful outcome needs to look like.

The ToR should set out the various stages or phases of the project and outline
the main expected activities. However, it should avoid going into too much detail
about how the assignment should be carried out. It should instead provide detailed
definitions of the intended analytical or reporting outputs, including the level of
accuracy, detail, and resolution that will be required.

5.1.1 Selecting Consultants, Gathering

Local Knowledge

A Level 2 urban flood risk assignment requires a balanced team of consultants with
a range of skills and competencies. Core skills are flood (hydrological and hydraulic)
and risk modeling; prefeasibility design of green, blue, and gray flood control or
drainage infrastructure interventions; environmental and social expertise; and urban
planning. But urban flood risk interventions often also provide an opportunity to

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 141

add value to urban living conditions. For example, stakeholders may have ambitions
for particular areas in the urban environment such as more recreational space,
improved water supply, and so forth. These ambitions should be acknowledged
at an early stage and may require that different specialists (for example, drinking
water or sanitation specialists, urban landscape architects, and others) be added
to the consultant’s team requirements to integrate these knowledge fields into a
comprehensive plan for urban flood risk management.

During preparation of the ToR, all efforts should be made to collect or be aware of
as much relevant information and data as reasonably possible. In many countries,
it is challenging and time-consuming to acquire data from governments or other
sources. Early identification of and access to relevant data from local stakeholders
should therefore have high priority during tender preparation. To those ends, site
visits and intensive discussions with the stakeholders are strongly recommended
regarding the functioning of the existing river or coastal flood protection
infrastructure and urban drainage systems as well as any associated challenges (or
flood risk management issues). These discussions should explore data availability for
these systems, the urban environment at risk, and timelines for access—resulting in
a clear understanding of the overall context for the assignment and its outcomes.

In addition, a review of earlier assessments and interventions should be carried

out to provide up-to-date insights into what has been done to date and prevent
duplication of work. A review of existing data sources (including any existing
numerical models of the area of interest) shall also be carried out to identify what
additional data collection must be included in the scope of work and how the
project can build on previous assignments. Based on this information, a ToR must
be drafted and discussed with the stakeholders to get their input and feedback.

Finally, the safety and security situation in the specific urban and country context
is important because a Level 2 flood hazard and risk assessment requires local
knowledge and should include field visits by senior technical staff as well as
firsthand discussions with local knowledge holders. International consultants
may often associate with local consultants to carry out or facilitate these tasks.
Official travel advice and regulations provided by national governments dictate
the possibilities and limitations of international consultants carrying out work
or directing and supervising others to work in countries abroad. Generally, the
international consultants must provide duty of care to their local subcontractors,
but the required level may differ depending on individual country regulations. Travel
or restrictions on hiring local contractors may impose specific limitations on the
envisioned activities and may require tailoring the ToR accordingly.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 142

5.1.2 Key ToR Features and Lessons Learned

A ToR includes several key features:

CONTEXT: PURPOSE:

What is the country context, what are the existing and What is the objective of the assessment, and who will use
potential future challenges of urban flood risk, and who the output?
are the main stakeholders?

What is the geographical (scale) and temporal What level of detail is required for the hazard and
(existing, future) scope? risk assessment—horizontal resolution, type of
What flood hazards (pluvial, coastal, fluvial) and modeling to use, quality of the digital terrain model
risks (affected population, casualities, direct or to use, number of small-scale features included in
indirect damages, and critical infrastructure) models, and number of events, among others?
SCOPE: are included? What level of detail is required regarding the
Who are the stakeholders, and when and how design, costing, and assessment of potential
should they be engaged in the assignment? impacts of structural interventions?

What outputs, such as flood hazard maps and risk What are the needs for capacity building within
metrics, are expected? the agencies or among other stakeholders?

What types of interventions (gray-green-blue What is the level of engagement and interaction
infrastructure solutions, nonstructural solutions) with government counterparts and other relevant
shall be considered? stakeholders in the country?

DELIVERABLES: TIMELINE:

Which reports, datasets, prefeasibility drawings, What are the deadlines for reporting, feedback, and
visualizations, and the like should be developed, and what meetings with stakeholders?
do the acceptance processes (reviews) of these products
look like?

CONSULTANT’S TEAM IMPLEMENTATION

REQUIREMENTS: ARRANGEMENTS:

Which staff competencies and skills are required to cover What is the contracting agency, what is the role and
relevant disciplines as well as local or global experience organization of stakeholders, and what is the country’s
requirements? safety and security situation?

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 143

A review of past natural risk assessment projects has revealed several lessons
learned from earlier assignments for preparing a good ToR:

Be specific
about the purpose, expected analysis, level of detail, outputs, and so on of
the hazard and risk assessment—to be further detailed and confirmed during
the inception stage and clearly documented within the inception report.
The importance of the inception stage of the assignment should not be
underestimated. This preliminary stage allows the consultants who will carry
out the work an opportunity to develop a fuller understanding of all aspects
of the assessment and to confirm or adjust the detail of their methodology as
necessary. The overall scope will not change as a result; however, there may
need to be clarifications or final agreements regarding some technical or project
management details.

Emphasize the need for hazard and risk model validation

to obtain realistic results despite difficulties due to lack of data.

Clearly state the expectations for interventions—

whether structural (gray and nature-based) or nonstructural—and the level of
detail required in the functional and technical description, dimensions and layouts,
and drawings or visualizations.

Request a project-specific quality assurance and quality control

section within the team’s proposals that defines the approach to reducing the risk
of errors in data processing and to obtaining good-quality documentation.

Request clear explanation

of how uncertainties will be dealt with throughout the entire chain of hazard
and risk modeling (for example, modeling uncertainties and future climate and
socioeconomic scenarios).

Request a diverse team of specialists

that is not only tailored to the specific urban flood issues but also able to address
the stakeholders’ other context-specific ambitions or needs, which may be
combined with flood management interventions.

Be clear about requirements for and delivery of data and models

(such as regarding formats and software). Stipulate the use of open data and
software as much as possible.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 144

Be specific in selection criteria

to ensure that the quality of the bidders’ proposals can be distinguished (for
example, in terms of staff competencies, experience with similar projects, and key
aspects of the technical proposal).

Prepare a preliminary time and cost estimate

for the various tasks of the assignment to help align the overall budget with the
requested details in the various activities.

Prepare all existing data or models

from the various project partners—often a time-consuming task—to hand over
during initial stages of the project.

Remember, the purpose of the ToR is to state all requirements in a way that allows
the firm to cost the work. The more clearly they are defined, the more accurately
the firms will be able to price the work, and the less they will need to load the cost
to cover their risks through misunderstanding.

Once proposals from various bidders are received, the selection of a firm can
be initiated. A good mix of technical and nontechnical people for the evaluation
of an urban flood risk proposal is essential. A Level 2 assessment covers a wide
range of technical and nontechnical disciplines such as hydrology, hydraulics,
risk assessment, environmental and social impacts, costing of interventions, and
institutional aspects. Therefore, a varied team for evaluation of the bids is required
to make a good selection.

5.2
PROJECT EXECUTION
PHASE

5.2.1 Consultant Oversight

Once a team of consultants is on board, managing an urban flood risk assessment

requires various skills in the client-side team that oversees the consultant’s activities.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 145

These skills depend on the specifics of the assignment, but generally speaking, the
following skills are always required in guiding this assignment:

Ability to engage with local stakeholders and to gather

context-specific knowledge
Experience in flood hazard and risk modeling and design of interventions
Managerial skills to keep track of planning, budget, and so on.

It is important to recognize that conducting an urban flood risk assessment is not

an exact science or a standardized product. Also, urban flood risk assessments
are often applied in data-poor environments, which requires the ability to interpret
modeling results and use expert judgment to deliver credible results. From an
oversight perspective, it is therefore paramount to guide the consultant by providing
experienced resources to ensure high-quality products and alignment of the
process with the envisioned time and budget available.

5.2.2 Stakeholder Management

The characteristics of a flood risk assignment require a thorough and frequent

interaction between the consultant and stakeholders to discuss the best
methodological approach for the specific situation. Regular meetings are also
essential to guide the process of such an assignment.

The involvement of stakeholders throughout the process helps in three

fundamental respects:

To acquaint stakeholders with the approach and the results of the

risk analysis.
Stakeholders should be able to provide feedback as to whether the results of the
risk analysis are realistic and recognizable—aligned with their own understanding
of local risks—which is pivotal for creating a joint factual basis regarding the
existing and future risks in a city environment. Such a basis is essential to move
toward interventions supported by the stakeholders.

To get input and feedback from the stakeholders on the feasibility of

proposed solutions.
Stakeholders often know very well the existing structural and nonstructural systems
to prevent the impacts of floods, and they can provide valuable feedback on what
may work and may not work to increase urban flood resilience.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 146

To discuss other ambitions of stakeholders in the urban environments at risk.

Through discussions, integrated visions and prefeasibility designs can be created
by linking investments in flood risk mitigation to other urban needs, developing a
combined investment approach, and thereby further enhancing the support for
these interventions.

During inception of the project, it is strongly recommended to develop a clear

stakeholder management plan, including the roles and responsibilities of all parties
involved (stakeholders, direct beneficiaries, consultant, and client), milestones for
discussion, and agreement on next steps. With that being said, it is recommended
to check the willingness of different organizations to provide support and
information before the study begins, because experience shows that lack of support
and information is often a bottleneck for consultants.

5.2.3 Quality Assessment and Control

During the project execution, a robust review process for deliverables is critical
for high-quality outputs. Typically, an urban flood risk assessment produces three
different types of deliverables: (1) reports (inception report, modeling report, and
the like); (2) models and analytical work (hydrological or hydraulic models and risk
models); and (3) output datasets (derived hydrological data, flood hazard or risk
maps, and risk metrics).

The first step in the review process lies with the consultant, through its own quality
assurance and quality control process. It is important to ensure that the consultant
adheres to its own internal quality procedures and makes explicit how this process
has been carried out, not only for reports but also for modeling schematizations
and modeling results. The consultant should also comply with industry good
practice, follow normal expected standards and procedures, and be able to
demonstrate these practices at any stage during and for a reasonable period after
the completion of the assignment. This demonstration would include keeping
understandable and logical modeling logs, ensuring logical and sensible directory
and file naming conventions and formats, and implementing standard graphic
information system (GIS) protocol for all geospatial datasets.

The next step is the review process by the client or beneficiaries. Providing
sufficient time for review and a logical structure for organizing the comments and
suggestions for improvement (for example, using standardized comment sheets) are
important to add value to the deliverables’ overall quality and to ensure a smooth
process with the consultant.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 147

5.2.4 Lessons Learned

Review and discussions of past urban flood risk assessments have revealed the
following nonexhaustive list of specific lessons learned for the execution phase:

Ensure that the importance of the project Allocate sufficient resources or time from the
scoping and inception stages of an assignment client’s perspective to work with the consultant
are acknowledged and that these stages are well (meetings, reviews, and so on) and to meet
documented. This is an opportunity to refine, deadlines for reviews (by the client and
agree upon, and finalize the methods, available stakeholders) to allow the consultants time
data, timeline, any project risks or constraints to meet their deadlines. In the same way, it is
and so on, as well as to be clear on both sides essential that stakeholders make commitments
exactly how the assignment will progress and of time to support data collection, to engage in
what the expectations are. This is only achievable field visits, and to discuss the results and provide
if sufficient time is assigned for this activity and feedback is essential.
should include formal approval and sign-off
to ensure the outcomes are recognized and Be aware of and avoid scope creep during the
successfully implemented. project (client to consultant), and only allow
project change through a formal process of
Allocate enough time to assess the hazard and documentation, agreement, and approval to
risk results once available and, if necessary, avoid later disagreements regarding budget,
fine-tune these to arrive at credible results. The time, and deliverables (or quality).
interpretation or explanation and the sensibility
checks of hazard and risk modeling results (both Organize regular meetings with the consultant to
consultant and client) are important. It is easy to discuss interim results, with presentations (by the
take the results at face value without giving them client and consultant) to discuss key assumptions
sufficiently rigorous critical examination, which and decisions regarding the methodology of
can lead to less-robust outcomes. modeling and design of interventions.

Check that the consultant follows their own Match the project’s scope with its duration. The
quality assurance and quality control procedures assignment’s expected duration is often dictated
before releasing deliverables for client review. by the program considerations, but its scope
This should be properly evidenced as part of the must be designed to realistically align with the
reporting process. Efficiency can be improved by time available.
using standardized comment sheets for reviews
of deliverables to organize and synchronize Be aware of and closely monitor the safety
comments, suggestions for improvements, and security situation in a country (client and
and responses to comments. Also, ensure consultant). During project implementation,
that the various reviewers’ and stakeholders’ it shall always be part of the consultant’s risk
comments to the consultant are consistent and register, in which mitigation measures are also
not contradictory. identified and executed.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 148

Each urban flood risk assignment will have its own specific characteristics, but a
continuous dialogue between consultant and client about project expectations and
objectives—and a good focus on the interim and final project deliverables and
the quality thereof during the project execution—will maximize the chances of an
assignment with high-quality output and a smooth process.

5.3
PROJECT CLOSURE PHASE

The purpose of the project closure phase is to ensure that the results and findings
are delivered in such a way that promotes ownership with key stakeholders and to
lay the foundation for follow-up discussions and investments. It is also important
to help ensure that the effort and investment in data collection and preparation,
modeling, analytical work, and intellectual endeavor is not lost or wasted. The
project handover phase is often a good opportunity for capacity building among
stakeholders through tailored training on both the deliverables and the means
of preparing them (for example, hydrology, hydraulic modeling, geographic
information system, and risk-aware land use planning).

A well-structured and logical data archive of the project is therefore important to

enable efficient use of this information for other purposes. The original ToR’s careful
description of model and data delivery and handover will be an important part of
a smooth project closure. But the execution of a good data archive and handover
could sometimes come under pressure owing to time and budget issues at the end
of the project. It is important to realize that much of the work’s value is lost if this
archiving and handover are not done. A report by itself is not of much use at a later
stage, especially if the model or data collected can be reused for a next phase (for
example, detailing the interventions).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Project Management Issues 149

Lessons learned from earlier assignments for the project closure phase include
the following:

Ensure that the consultant delivers the data (for Carry out an evaluation of the project performance
example, model schematizations and hazard, and outcomes together with the consultant to
exposure, and risk datasets) with all associated identify any lessons to be learned (process and
metadata in a structured and logical way with clear contents), and ensure that these are shared
documentation at the end of the project. internally to improve future assignments.

Ensure that the data and models are delivered in

a way that will allow easy retrieval for any future
phases of the project (such as during project
preparation and implementation) or for further use
or developments by the client or the client’s officially
appointed consultants.

It is important to realize that a project may be closed, but the project deliverables
are often fed into the next steps, such as detailed feasibility and design studies and
implementation of interventions. The produced data, models, and reports can be of
valuable use in these steps toward a more flood-resilient urban environment.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Glossary 150

Glossary
# A B
0D/1D/2D/3D: Flood modeling ANNUAL EXPECTED DAMAGE BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE: A type
approaches, varying from simple (AED): Often referred to as the of nature-based solution (NbS) that
zero-dimensional (0D) point or box annual average damage (AAD), AED utilizes water retention to manage
models based on a volume balance is the annualized average of all flood flood risk, such as a retention pond or
to complex 3D models that calculate damages that could occur over many attenuation feature.
water movement in three dimensions. years. It is not a figure expected in
Hybrid approaches (usually 1D-2D) any particular year, but it provides an
also exist that combine different model indication of what flooding in an area
approaches. will cost over time. It is calculated
by estimating the total damages for
each event, multiplied by the event
probability to provide the annual
damage.

C C D
CALIBRATION: Tuning the model CONSEQUENCES: Damage to assets DESIGN STORM: A “hypothetical
parameters with realistic boundaries such as buildings, infrastructure; discrete rainstorm characterized
such that the results fit observed victims or displaced people; economic by a specific duration, temporal
characteristics. and welfare losses; and environmental distribution, rainfall intensity, return
damage. frequency, and total depth of rainfall”
(Law Insider dictionary, s.v. “design
storm,” accessed February 11, 2023,
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/
design-storm)

D D E
DETERMINISTIC: This modeling DIGITAL TERRAIN MODEL (DTM): EXPOSURE: The assets, features, or
approach simulates either a single Sometimes also known as digital facets of a community that are affected
storm or a small number of statistically elevation model (DEM), the DTM shows by flooding—including people,
derived design events (such as 10- the bare earth elevation (after removal property, buildings, transportation,
year, 50-year, 100-year, and so on). of objects such as trees and buildings, or any aspect that can be considered
In this approach, each return period among others). vulnerable to flooding.
is represented by a single outcome
which can then be integrated to
provide risk matrices that take
frequency into account. This approach
is easier to conceptualize than a
full probabilistic assessment and is
widely used.

G G G
GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE: Built GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE: A GREEN-BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE:
structures and mechanical equipment, type of nature-based solution (NbS) A combination of green (i.e., use of
such as reservoirs, embankments, that utilizes the ability of vegetation vegetation) and blue (i.e., use of water
pipes, culverts, pumps, and canals. to retain or at least slow down the retention structures) interventions
These engineered solutions are movement of water to help manage that use the best of both types of
embedded within watersheds flood risk, such as a mangroves, flood reduction capacity to maximize
or coastal ecosystems whose forests, or dense undergrowth, or even the flood risk management benefits.
hydrological and environmental as simple as green roofs. An example of this type of feature is
attributes profoundly affect the a wetland.
performance of the gray infrastructure.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Glossary 151

H H I
HYDRAULICS: The study of the HYDROLOGY: The study of the IMPACTS: Consequences of a
movement of surface and subsurface circulation of water throughout the flood hazard event or interventions,
flows in physical systems such as at hydrological cycle, including processes including environmental (for example,
coasts, in rivers, streams, storm drain such as precipitation, evaporation, removal of polluted sediments) and
networks, etc. infiltration, groundwater flow, surface social effects (for example, land
runoff, and streamflow. acquisition or resettlement).

I L M
INTERVENTIONS: Actions that LiDAR: Laser imaging, detection, MAXIMUM DAMAGE VALUES:
reduce risk either by lowering and ranging, which is an airborne Monetary values of maximum direct
the probability of flooding, the technique to measure the earth’s damage to an asset (such as housing
consequences of flooding, or both. elevation with high precision using or infrastructure) during a flood,
Examples in an urban context are laser pulses. expressed in US dollars per square
drainage works, dredging, waste meter (US$/m2). These values are
collection, and others. The scale of generally based on replacement
interventions covers catchment, urban, costs but factor in other variables (for
neighborhood, and building, and the example, depreciation, contents of
type of intervention can be either buildings, etc.).
structural or nonstructural.

M N N
MERIT: Multi-Error-Removed NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS (NBS): NONSTRUCTURAL
Improved-Terrain, a global topography An umbrella term referring to features, INTERVENTIONS: Measures not
dataset based on NASA’s original structures, or actions that protect, involving physical construction
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission sustainably manage, and restore that “use knowledge, practice, or
(SRTM) (horizontal resolution natural or modified ecosystems, agreement to reduce disaster risks
approximately 90 meters) in which to reduce flood risk. Typical and impacts, in particular through
errors of the original SRTM dataset subcategories of these types of flood policies and laws, public awareness
have been reduced and accuracy risk-reducing interventions are green, raising, and training and education.”
improved. blue, and green-blue infrastructure. Examples are early warning systems,
See the recent “Catalogue of Nature- contingency plans, evacuation plans,
Based Solutions for Urban Resilience” zoning, insurance, and risk awareness,
(World Bank 2021). among others (“Structural and Non-
Structural Measures,” PreventionWeb,
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction,
https://www.preventionweb.net/
terminology/structural-and-non-
structural-measures

P P R
PROBABILITY: Chance of occurrence PROBABILISTIC APPROACH: This REPLACEMENT (OR
of flood events, often expressed as modeling approach typically differs RECONSTRUCTION) COSTS:
a percentage likelihood per year or from a deterministic assessment in Monetary value to replace an asset,
return periods. that it considers all possible events generally expressed in US$/m2.
that could cause flooding. A common
approach is to create a 10,000-year
time series of rainfall, river discharge,
tides, and the like, using stochastic
methods that capture the local
variability of the relevant parameters.
A key feature is the range of different
conditions that can represent a
specific frequency event (return
period) and the spatial variation of the
severity of these events. This approach
provides a far better reflection of
natural or seminatural processes (such
as flooding).

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Glossary 152

R R S
RETURN PERIODS: The inverse of RISK: The combination of hazard, its SCENARIOS: Current and possible
the average frequency of occurrence; probability, and its consequences. future conditions that represent
for example, the frequency of a “10- expected drivers of change, such
year flood” has a 10 percent chance as socioeconomic development
of being exceeded every year. These (for example, population growth or
days, many institutes favor the use economic development) and climate
of a percentage likelihood per year change (for example, sea level rise
because the “return period” can be or intensification of rainfall). Because
misleading. there is so much uncertainty relating
to the estimates of future conditions,
it is common to investigate a range
of possible conditions under different
strengths or types of drivers, either
singularly or in combination.

S S U
SRTM: NASA’s Shuttle Radar STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS: URBAN FLOOD RISK: This concept
Topography Mission (SRTM) is a “Any physical construction to reduce encapsulates the scale and likelihood
global gridded topography dataset or avoid possible impacts of hazards of an adverse impact associated with
(30 meters and 90 meters resolution) or the application of engineering flooding within an urban environment,
with low accuracy. techniques or technology to achieve characterized by a combination of the
hazard resistance and resilience in diverse nature and complex sources
structures or systems.” Examples and causes of flood hazard; the wide
are embankments (levees or dikes), range of exposed assets, communities,
pump stations, reservoirs, canals, and infrastructure; and the
drainage tunnels, and waterproofing associated complexity and variation
of buildings, among others (“Structural in vulnerability of these exposed
and Non-Structural Measures,” elements that depends not only on
PreventionWeb, United Nations Office their construction and materials but
for Disaster Risk Reduction, also their ability to cope or recover
https://www.preventionweb.net/ from flooding events.
terminology/structural-and-non-
structural-measures.

V V
VALIDATION: The process of VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS FOR
checking the model results against ASSETS: The vulnerability function for
(independent) flood data. assets is often a value between 0 and
1 as a function of one (or more) flood
hazard characteristic(s), expressing the
percentage of the (total) replacement
costs.

Table of Contents ←
URBAN FLOOD
RISK HANDBOOK CH: KT O 1 2 3 4 5 GL Glossary 153

REFERENCES

World Bank. 2021. “A Catalogue of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Resilience.” Report,
World Bank, Washington, DC.

Table of Contents ←
UR B AN F L OOD
R I SK
H A N D B OO K
ASSESSING RISK AND IDENTIFYING
INTERVENTIONS