An evaluation of flood forecasting, warning and response systems in the European Union Article Received: 31 January 1995 Accepted: 01 August 1995 DOI:
Cite this article as: Parker, D. & Fordham, M. Water Resour Manage (1996) 10: 279. doi:10.1007/BF00508897 Abstract
This paper presents results from the EUROflood research project sponsored by the European Commission under the EPOCH programme. The paper evaluates levels of development of flood forecasting, warning and response systems (FFWRS) in the European Union with reference to riverine and tidal floods in The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Portugal. An experimental evaluation methodology, comprising fourteen criteria and five development stages, is used to evaluated FFWRS. Flood forecasting is the starting point, but the research addresses entire FFWRS. Despite advances in flood forecasting, FFWRS often under-perform because warning dissemination and response are unsatisfactory.
FFWRS have developed in response to different water resource management problems, varying flood characteristics and different historic, cultural and institutional factors. FFWRS for flood defence and flood emergency response are the main focus, but they are also important for navigation, bridge clearance, fishing, recreation and industry. France, parts of Germany, The Netherlands and England and Wales have relatively mature FFWRS. FFWRS are much less well developed in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Portugal, and important areas for enhancement are identified in all countries. Cross-country and within-country comparisons reveal the potential for knowledge transfer, although ultimately the unique circumstances of each country places limits upon this process.
Key words floods forecasting warnings evaluation France Germany The Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom References
ChattertonJ. B.: 1994, FFWRS Country Reports: The Netherlands. In M.Fordham, C. H.Green, A.Herring, A.Ketteridge, D.Parker and E. C.Penning-Rowsell, (eds)
EUROflood: Flood Forecasting, Warning and Response Systems
, Technical Annex, 3.3.1-3.3.32, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlexes University, Enfield.
Delegation Aux Risques Majeurs: 1992, Prevention des risques naturels et technologiques majeurs: annees 1988 a 1990, Ministere de l'Environnement/DEPPR, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.
Selecting Tools for the Emergency Notification Toolbox
, Carpe Diem, Vol, 1 No. 2, The Intern. Emerg. Management and Eng. Soc., U.S.A.
FordhamM., GreenC., HerringA., KetteridgeA. M., ParkerD. J. and Penning-RowsellE. C.: 1994, Technical Annex for the Flood Foresasting and Warning Module, EUROflood I, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield.
HandmerJ. W. and Penning-RowsellE. C.: 1990,
Hazards and the Communication of Risk
, Gower Technical Press, Aldershot, U.K.
Institut National De La Consommation: 1993,
Inondations, October, Paris.
KrzysztofowiczR. and DavisR.: 1983, A methodology for evaluation of flood forecast-response systems,
Water Resour. Res.
Landerarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser: 1993, Vergleichende Ubersicht uber den gegenwartigen Stand des Hochwassermeldedienstes in Deutschland, Stausbericht.
Marshall, C. T.: 1991, River flood forecasting-state of the art review, National Rivers Authority, Project C2 (90) 1, Bristol.
McLuckieB. J.: 1973, The warning system in disaster situations: a selective analysis, Disaster Research Center Research Series No 9, Ohio, U.S.A.: Ohio State University.
Parker, D. J.: 1991, Flood Disasters in Britain: Lessons from Flood Hazard Research, Paper presented at Conference on the Changing Face of Europe, Disasters, University of Bradford, U.K.
ParkerD. J. and NealJ.: 1990, Evaluating the performance of flood warning systems. In J. W.Handmer and E. C.Penning-Rowsell (eds)
Hazard and the Communication of Risk
, Gower Technical Press, Aldershot, U.K., pp. 137–156.
Parker, D. J., Von Lany, P. and Taylor, K.: 1992, Flood defence emergency response: national levels of service, National Rivers Authority, R&D Note 106, Bristol.
ParkerD. J., FordhamM., PortouJ. and TapsellS.: 1994, The flood risk to London: a preliminary scoping study, Metropolitan Police Service, New Scotland Yard, London.
Penning-RowsellE. C. and ChattertonJ. B.: 1977,
The Benefits of Flood Alleviation: A Manual of Assessment Techniques
, Gower Technical Press, Aldershot.
Penning-RowsellE. C. and FordhamM.: 1994,
Floods across Europe
, Middlesex University Press, Enfield.
Philips Geographical Digest 1994–95: 1994, Heinemann-Philips, London.
Rocha, J., Saraiva, M. da G. and Correia, F. N. (1993) Flood hazard management in Portugal, in EUROflood Project, 1st Annual Report, March, Middlesex University, 135–138.
RocheP. A.: 1989, The French Policy for Prevention of Flood Damage, In Hydrology of Disasters, Procs. of Technical Conference held in Geneva, November 1988, James and James, London, 69–83.
SmithD. I. and HandmerJ. W. (eds) 1986, Flood warning in Australia, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
The Economist: 1995, The drowned heart of Europe, 4 February, 39–40, The Economist, London.
Torterotot, J. P.: 1993, Le cout des dommages dus aux inondations: estimation et analyse des incertitudes. Thés'e de doctorat, L'Ecole Nationale des Ponts at Chaussees, Paris, France.
TunstallS. M.: 1992, The flood warning systems and the flood events of January and February 1990 in Maidenhead and other locations with the western area of the NRA Thames Region, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield.
Welsh Affairs Committee: 1990, The breach of the sea defences of 26/27 February along the North Wales coast, HMSO, London.
WilliamsH. B.: 1964, Human factors in warning-and-response sytems. In G.Grosser, H.Wechsler and M.Greenblatt (eds)
The Threat of Impending Disaster: Contributions to the Psychology of Stress
. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, Cambridge, Mass, U.S.A.
Google Scholar Copyright information
© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996