Refine
Document Type
- Article (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Katastrophenrisiko (3) (remove)
Resilience in relation to flood risk management (FRM) is not a new concept, yet parts of the FRM community are still struggling to apply it. The main challenge this study addresses is the question as to whether parts of the FRM community should still adopt, or rather “leap‐frog,” resilience. The main purpose is to evaluate whether resilience is a still on‐going trend or, already subsiding. Research suggests that resilience is an on‐going trend that connects research and policy and has gained international recognition as expressed by international guidelines and bodies promoting its research but also its operationalization. Academic literature in the area of FRM also shows a significant continuing development. Resilience enables to analyze dynamics and transformations of riverine areas, or coastal zones in connection to an integrated social‐environmental system approach with more emphasis and conceptual basis than previous concepts. Resilience is more than a short‐lived notion and it appears that FRM researchers cannot avoid addressing it. Resilience often is a convergence of ideas and mainstreaming of efforts, which in many venues is absolutely necessary and can help, for example, to decrease silo‐thinking. But as academics, we have a mandate to remain skeptical and remain on the look‐out for novel ideas, too.
This article is categorized under:
Engineering Water > Planning Water
At the case study of the city of Cologne and the neighbouring Rhein‐Erft‐Kreis (a county), selected resilience aspects of critical infrastructure (CI) and cascading effects are analysed concerning major river floods. Using a Geographic Information System, the applicability of the approach is demonstrated using open source software and data, augmented by manual entries. This study demonstrates the feasibility and limitations of analysing lifeline features of interest for disaster risk and emergency management such as roads, bridges and electricity supply. By highlighting interdependencies of emergency services with CI such as roads, cascading effects of interconnected paths are shown. The findings indicate that in an extreme event flood scenario over 2,000 km of roads and eight bridges will be exposed to floods in the area of the rivers Rhine and Erft. This places huge demands on disaster and emergency management institutions and people affected and limits their resiliency.
Bridging Gaps in Minimum Humanitarian Standards and Shelter Planning by Critical Infrastructures
(2021)
Current agendas such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction or the Sustain-able Development Goals are demanding more integration of disaster risk management into otherthematic fields and relevant sectors. However, certain thematic fields such as shelter planning andcritical infrastructure have not been integrated yet. This article provides an analysis of minimumhumanitarian standards contained in the well-known Sphere handbook. Gaps are identified forseveral critical infrastructure services. Moreover, guidance on how to derive infrastructure or lifelineneeds has been found missing. This article analyses the missing service supply and infrastructureidentification items and procedures. The main innovation is a more integrative perspective on infras-tructure that can improve existing minimum humanitarian standards. It can guide the provision ofinfrastructure services to various types for different hazard scenarios, hence make humanitarian aidand shelter planning more sustainable in terms of avoiding infrastructure or lifeline shortages.