Environmental Risks in Urban and Regional Development—Assessing the Effects of Flood Resilient Technologies

  • Thomas Naumann
  • Sebastian Golz


Flood resilience strategies that seek to mitigate the vulnerability of receptors exposed to flooding are becoming an increasingly important issue in flood risk management in Europe. Significant receptors within flood-prone built-up areas are, amongst others, buildings with their many constructive forms. Building vulnerability thus has a strong effect on economic losses. Key criteria for the implementation of Flood Resilience Technologies (FReT) are their potential to improve the resilience of building types. For this purpose, detailed knowledge about the effects of FReT in terms of vulnerability mitigation is indispensable. Within the EU-research project “Smart Resilience Technology, Systems and Tools” (SMARTeST), innovative and smart flood resilience technologies have been identified and tested by experimental studies with regard to their reliability and level of performance. To analyse the flood vulnerability of built-up areas and to assess the impacts of FReT on damage reduction, the paper presents a methodology that uses a synthetic approach to the calculation of flood damage. As a result of this engineering approach, specific depth-damage functions can be derived synthetically for building types to describe the degree of damage at varying water levels. Research findings in European case studies have proven that the structural design and the building fabric have considerable impacts on the flood vulnerability of building types. In this way the effects of different FReT can be analysed and compared ex ante based on detailed estimates of damage costs. A number of synthetic depth-damage functions have been implemented in the GIS-based flood damage simulation model HOWAD. This expert tool spatially interlinks hydraulic modelling results with detailed information on the physical vulnerability of buildings; it then calculates the damage for each building with its site-specific water level, taking account of the impacts of implemented FReT. The calculated damage costs at object-level can be aggregated for different areas of interest. High-resolution modelling is a prerequisite for cost-benefit analyses of measures and also supports decision-makers in finding cost-effective technologies and appropriate technology combinations to improve the resilience of buildings. This model has already been applied in European case studies in Germany, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom and Spain, taking account of the various national and local contexts as well as different flood types.


Flood damage assessment Flood vulnerability Flood risk Flood resilience technology Vulnerability mitigation Flood damage modelling Flood-resilience technologies Synthetic depth-damage functions 



The work was undertaken as part of the SMARTeST project that looked at innovative technologies, systems and tools to increase resilience to flood events. We thank all partners who contributed to the research and to those who formed an important part through their involvement in the National Support Groups. SMARTeST was funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no.°8244102.


  1. Bowker, P., Escarameia, M., & Tagg, A. (2007). Improving the flood performance of new buildings—Flood resilient construction. London: RIBA Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. BMBF. (2015). Zukunftsstadt—Strategische Forschungs- und Innovationsagenda. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. [online]. Retrieved Aug 10, 2016, from
  3. Emschergenossenschaft and Hydrotec. (2004). Hochwasser-Aktionsplan Emscher. Kapitel 1: Methodik der Schadensermittlung [Flood action plan for the Emscher river. Chapter 1: Methods of damage assessment]. Emschergenossenschaft, Essen.Google Scholar
  4. Escarameia, M., Karanxha, A., & Tagg, A. (2007). Quantifying the flood resilience properties of walls in typical UK dwellings. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, 28(3), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Escarameia, M., Tagg, A., Walliman, N., Zevenbergen, C., & Anvarifar, F. (2012). The role of building materials in improved flood resilience and routes for implementation. In: F. Klijn & T. Schweckendiek (Eds.), Comprehensive flood risk management: Research for policy and practice. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Flood Risk Management FLOODrisk2012. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 19–23 Nov 2012 (pp. 333–335). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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 [online]. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from¼OJ:L:2007:288:0027:0034:EN:PDF.
  7. Gamerith, H., & Hoefler, K. (2006). Praeventiver Hochwasserschutz—Planungsgrundsätze. Graz: ARGE.Google Scholar
  8. Garvin, S. (2012). Flood resilient building—Part 2: Building in flood-risk areas and designing flood-resilient buildings. Watford: BRE Press.Google Scholar
  9. Garvin, S. (2013). Final report summary—SMARTEST (Smart Resilience Technology, Systems and Tools). [online]. Retrieved June 23, 2017, from
  10. Gabalda, V., Garvin, S., Hunter, K., Florence, C., Salagnac, J. -L., Golz, S., et al. (2012). Flood resilience technologies. Deliverable 2.3 of the EU-FP7 research project ‘Smart Resilient Technology, Systems and Tools’ (SMARTeST) [online]. Retrieved Sept 20, 2014, from
  11. Gissing, A., & Blong, R. J. (2004). Accounting for variability in commercial flood damage estimation. Australian Geographer, 35(2), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golz, S. (2016). Bewertung der Schadensanfälligkeit von Mauerwerkskonstruktionen gegenüber Hochwassereinwirkungen. [Assessing the flood vulnerability of external wall constructions.] Dissertation. Technische Universität Dresden.Google Scholar
  13. Golz, S., Schinke, R., & Naumann, T. (2015). Assessing the effects of flood resilience technologies on building scale. Urban Water Journal, 12(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gouldby, B., & Samuels, P. (2005). Language of risk—Project definitions (2nd ed.), FLOODsite Consortium, FLOODsite Project Report T32-04-01.
  15. Hall, J. W., Evans, E. P., Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Sayers, P. B., Thorne, C. R., & Saul, A. J. (2003). Quantified scenarios analysis of drivers and impacts of changing flood risk in England and Wales: 2030–2100. Environmental Hazards, 5(3–4), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ICPR. (2002). Non structural flood plain management—Measures and their effectiveness. International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR), Koblenz.Google Scholar
  17. Kreibich, H., Thieken, A. H., Petrow, T., Müller, M., & Merz, B. (2005). Flood loss reduction of private households due to building precautionary measures—Lessons learned from the Elbe flood in August 2002. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences, 5, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawson, N. (2011). The flood risk management glossary. Incorporating FLOODsite Glossary (FLOODsite), Flood Mapping Manual Editorial Group Glossary (FMMEP), Urban Flood Management Glossary (UFM), and the SMARTeST Project Glossary (SMARTeST). The University of Manchester, Manchester.Google Scholar
  19. Luther, J., & Schanze, J. (2009). Futures for the flood risk system of the Elbe River—Composition, analysis and evaluation. FLOODsite Report Number T14-09-04.
  20. McGahey, C., Sayers, P., Schanze, J., Walz, U., Petroschka, M., Luther, J., et al. (2009). Methodology for a DSS to support long-term Flood Risk Management Planning. FLOODsite Report 18-09-01. Retrieved June 23, 2017,
  21. Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Thieken, A. H., & Schmidtke, R. (2004). Estimation uncertainty of direct monetary flood damage to buildings. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences, 4, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., & Thieken, A. H. (2010). Review article “Assessment of economic flood damage”. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences, 10, 1697–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Messner, F., Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Green, C., Meyer, V., Tunstall, S., & van der Veen, A. (2007). Evaluating flood damages: Guidance and recommendations on principles and methods. FLOODsite-Report T09-06-01, 176 pp.
  24. MURL. (1999). Hochwasserfibel – Bauvorsorge in hochwassergefährdeten Gebieten. Raumordnung und Landwirtschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MURL), Düsseldorf: Ministerium für Umwelt.Google Scholar
  25. Naumann, T., Nikolowski, J., & Golz, S. (2009). Synthetic depth-damage functions—A detailed tool for analysing flood resilience of building types. In E. Pasche, N. Evelpidou, C. Zevenbergen, R. Ashley, & S. L. Garvin (Eds.), Road map towards a flood resilient urban environment. Hamburg: Institut fuer Wasserbau der Technischen Universität Hamburg-Harburg.Google Scholar
  26. Naumann, T., Nikolowski, J., Golz, S., & Schinke, R. (2010). Resilience and resistance of buildings and built structures to flood impacts—Approaches to analysis and evaluation. In: B. Mueller (Ed.), German annual of spatial research and policy 2010—Urban regional resilience: How do cities and regions deal with change? (pp. 89–100). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Neubert, M., Naumann, T., Hennersdorf, J., & Nikolowski, J. (2016). The geographic information system-based flood damage simulation model HOWAD. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 9(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
  28. Nikolowski, J., Goldberg, V., Zimm, J., & Naumann, T. (2013). Analysing the vulnerability of buildings to climate change: Summer heat and flooding. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 22(2), 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. NRE. (2000). Rapid appraisal method (RAM) for floodplain management report. Australia Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE), Melbourne.Google Scholar
  30. Penning-Rowsell, E. C., & Chatterton, J. B. (1977). The benefits of flood alleviation—A manual of assessment techniques (The blue manual). Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Technical Press.Google Scholar
  31. Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Johnson, C., Tunstall, S., Tapsell, S., Morris, J., Chatterton, J., et al. (2005). The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: A manual of assessment techniques. Middlesex: Middlesex University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Proverbs, D. G., & Soetanto, R. (2004). Flood damaged property: A guide to repair. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schinke, R., Neubert, M., Hennersdorf, J., Stodolny, U., Sommer, T., & Naumann, T. (2012). Vulnerability of subterranean building structures due to groundwater inundation—Calculation with the damage simulation model GRUWAD. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 12, 2865–2877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, D. I. (1994). Flood damage estimation—A review of urban stage-damage curves and loss functions. Water SA, 20(3), 231–238.Google Scholar
  35. Thieken, A. H., Olschewski A., Kreibich H., Kobsch S., & Merz B. (2008). Development and evaluation of FLEMOps—A new Flood Loss Estimation Model for the private sector. In: D. Proverbs, C. A. Brebbia, E.C., & Penning-Rowsell (Eds.), Flood recovery, innovation and response (pp. 315–324). WIT Press, Chichester.Google Scholar
  36. UNISDR. (2015). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2015. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).Google Scholar
  37. USACE. (1998). Flood proofing performance—Successes and failures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—National Flood Proofing Committee, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional DevelopmentDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations