Natural Hazards

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 167–189 | Cite as

An agent-based model for risk-based flood incident management

Original Paper

Abstract

Effective flood incident management (FIM) requires successful operation of complex, interacting human and technological systems. A dynamic agent-based model of FIM processes has been developed to provide new insights which can be used for policy analysis and other practical applications. The model integrates remotely sensed information on topography, buildings and road networks with empirical survey data to fit characteristics of specific communities. The multiagent simulation has been coupled with a hydrodynamic model to estimate the vulnerability of individuals to flooding under different storm surge conditions, defence breach scenarios, flood warning times and evacuation strategies. A case study in the coastal town of Towyn in the United Kingdom has demonstrated the capacity of the model to analyse the risks of flooding to people, support flood emergency planning and appraise the benefits of flood incident management measures.

Keywords

Flooding Risk analysis Disaster management Agent-based model Evacuation 

References

  1. Abt SR, Whittler RJ, Taylor A, Love DJ (1989) Human stability in a high flood hazard zone. Water Resour Bull 25(4):881–890Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod R (1997) The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates PD, De Roo APJ (2000) A simple raster-based model for floodplain inundation. J Hydrol 236:54–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates PD, Dawson RJ, Hall JW, Horritt MS, Nicholls RJ, Wicks J, Hassane MAAM (2005) Simplified two-dimensional modelling of coastal flooding for risk assessment and planning. Coast Eng 52(9):793–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BMRB (2001a) Flood warning dissemination: post event survey. British Market Research BureauGoogle Scholar
  6. BMRB (2001b) Flood action 2001: campaign evaluation. British Market Research BureauGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson RJ, Hall JW (2006) Adaptive importance sampling for risk analysis of complex infrastructure systems. Proc R Soc A 462(2075):3343–3362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawson RJ, Dickson ME, Nicholls RJ, Hall JW, Walkden MJA, Stansby P, Mokrech M, Richards J, Zhou J, Milligan J, Jordan A, Pearson S, Rees J, Bates P, Koukoulas S, Watkinson A (2009) Integrated analysis of risks of coastal flooding and cliff erosion under scenarios of long term change. Clim Change 95:249–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dechter R, Pearl J (1985) Generalized best-first search strategies and the optimality of A*. J ACM 32(3):505–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DEFRA and Environment Agency (2003) Flood risks to people phase 1: R&D Technical Report FD2317. DEFRA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische Mathematik 1:269–271 Google Scholar
  12. Environment Agency (2004) Exercise Triton 04: Overview report of lessons identified. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  13. Environment Agency (2006) Risk assessment for flood incident management: Annex 4 Understanding and application of complex system risk assessment models. Science Report—11206/SR. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  14. Estrela T, Quintas L (1994) Use of GIS in the modelling of flows on floodplains. In: White HR, Watts J (eds) Proceedings of 2nd international conference on river flood hydraulics. Wiley, Chichester, pp 177–189Google Scholar
  15. Evans E, Ashley R, Hall J, Penning-Rowsell E, Saul A, Sayers P, Thorne C, Watkinson A (2004) Foresight: future flooding. scientific summary, vol 1 and 2. Office of Science and Technology, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Galea E, Owen E, Lawrence P (1996) The EXODUS model, Fire Eng J (July 1996):26–30Google Scholar
  17. Gilbert N, Troitzsch K (2005) Simulation for the social scientist, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall JW, Meadowcroft IC, Sayers PB, Bramley ME (2003a) Integrated flood risk management in England and Wales. Nat Hazards Rev ASCE 4(3):126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall JW, Dawson RJ, Sayers PB, Rosu C, Chatterton JB, Deakin R (2003b) A methodology for national-scale flood risk assessment. Water Marit Eng ICE 156(3):235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart PE, Nilsson NJ, Raphael B (1968) A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cybern 4(2):100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Helbing D, Farkas I, Vicsek T (2000) Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407:487–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobeika AG, Jamei B (1985) MASSVAC: A model for calculating evacuation times under natural disaster. Emerg Plan Simul Ser 15:23–28Google Scholar
  23. Johnstone WM, Sakamoto D, Assaf H, Bourban S (2005) Architecture, modelling framework and validation of BC Hydro’s virtual reality life safety model. In: Vrijling et al. (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on stochastic hydraulics, 23–24 May 2005, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones GD (1990) County councils: co-ordination and concern the Towyn experience. In: New directions in public services (Ch. 13). Policy Studies Institute, London (ISBN 0 901 783 625)Google Scholar
  25. Jonkman SN, Kelman I (2005) An analysis of causes and circumstances of flood disaster deaths. Disasters 29(1):75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jonkman SN, Penning-Rowsell E (2008) Human instability in floods flows. J Am Water Resour As 44(5):1208–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonkman SN, Vrijling JK, Vrouwenvelder ACWM (2008) Methods for the estimation of loss of life due to floods: a literature review and a proposal for a new method. Nat Hazards 46:353–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karvonen RA, Hepojoki A, Huhta HK, Louhio A (2000) The use of physical models in dam-break analysis. RESCDAM Final Report, Helsinki University of Technology, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  29. Lind N, Hartford D, Assaf H (2004) Hydrodynamic models of human instability in a flood. J Am Water Resour As 40(1):89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lonsdale KG, Downing TE, Nicholls RJ, Parker D, Vafeidis AT, Dawson RJ, Hall JW (2008) Plausible responses to the threat of rapid sea-level rise for the Thames Estuary. Clim Change 91:145–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nagel K, Schreckenberg M (1992) A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic. J Phys I 2:2221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagel K, Wolf DE, Wagner P, Simon P (1998) Two-lane traffic rules for cellular automata: a systematic approach. Phys Rev E 58:1425–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NRC (2000) Risk analysis and uncertainty in flood damage reduction studies. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. ONS (2006) Ward mid-year population estimates for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics, Newport. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=13893. Accessed Apr 2010
  35. ONS and DfT (2008) Transport statistics bulletin: National Travel Survey 2008. Department for Transport, London. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/mainresults/nts2008/. Accessed Apr 2010
  36. Parker DJ, Tunstall SM, McCarthy SM (2007a) New insights into the benefits of flood warnings: results from a household survey in England and Wales. Environ Hazards 7:193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parker D, Tapsell S, McCarthy S (2007b) Enhancing the human benefits of flood warnings. Nat Hazards 43:397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Penning-Rowsell EC, Green C (2000) New insights into the appraisal of flood-alleviation benefits: (1) flood damage and flood loss information. Water Environ J 14(5):347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pitt M (2008) The Pitt review: lessons learned from the 2007 floods. The Cabinet Office, London http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview.html. Accessed Apr 2010
  40. Riley J, Meadows J (1995) The role of information in disaster planning: a case study approach. Library Manag 16(4):18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roe GM (1993) The Towyn experience and lessons learned. In: Rising sea level and coastal protection seminar report. Ulster Museum, Belfast, 22 April 1993. Oceanography Laboratories, University of Liverpool, pp 62–74Google Scholar
  42. Sallach D, Macal C (2001) The simulation of social agents: an introduction. Special Issue Soc Sci Comput Rev 19(3):245–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Samuelson DA (2000) Designing organisations, OR/MS Today, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  44. Simonovic SP, Ahmad S (2005) Computer-based model for flood evacuation emergency planning. Nat Hazards 34:25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Still KG (1993) New computer system can predict human behaviour response to building fires. Fire 84:40–41Google Scholar
  46. Stillwell J, Duke-Williams O (2003) A new web-based interface to British census of population origin—destination statistics. Environ Plan A 35(1):113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tooley MJ (1992) Sea-level changes and the impacts on coastal lowlands. J Soc Fellows 7(1):36–45Google Scholar
  48. Welsh Consumer Council (1992) In deep water: a study of consumer problems in Towyn and Kinmell Bay after the 1990 floods. Welsh Consumer Council, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo. Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston
  50. Wolshon B (2006) Evacuation planning and engineering for hurricane Katrina. Bridge 36(1):27–34Google Scholar
  51. Wong KHL, Luo M (2005) Computational tool in infrastructure emergency total evacuation analysis. In: Kantor P et al (eds) Intelligence and security informatics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  52. Zarboutis N, Marmaras N (2005) Investigating crowd behaviour during emergency evacuations using agent-based modelling. In: Proceedings of EAM 2005, 17–19 Oct, AthensGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations