IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v47y2008i2p217-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adapting to climate change: a comparison of two strategies for dike heightening

Author

Listed:
  • Arjen Hoekstra
  • Jean-Luc Kok

Abstract

In the Netherlands the current dike design policy is to design flood defence structures corresponding to an agreed flooding probability with an extra safety board of at least 0.5 m. For river dikes a return period of 1,250 years is used to determine the design water levels. A problem with this strategy is that it builds on assumptions with regard to the intrinsically uncertain probability distributions for the peak discharges. The uncertainty is considerable and due to (1) the measuring records that are limited to about 100 years and (2) the changing natural variability as a result of climate change. Although the probability distributions are regularly updated based on new discharge data the nature of the statistics is such that a change in the natural variability of the peak discharge affects the probability distribution only long after the actual change has happened. Here we compare the performance of the probabilistic dike design strategy with the older strategy, referred to as the ‘self-learning dike’. The basic principle of the latter strategy is that the dike height is kept at a level equal to the highest recorded water level plus a certain safety margin. The two flood prevention strategies are compared on the basis of the flooding safety over a 100-year period. The Rhine gauge station at Lobith serves as case study. The results indicate that the self-learning dike performs better than the probabilistic design in terms of safety and costs, both under current and climate change conditions. Copyright The Author(s) 2008

Suggested Citation

  • Arjen Hoekstra & Jean-Luc Kok, 2008. "Adapting to climate change: a comparison of two strategies for dike heightening," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 47(2), pages 217-228, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:47:y:2008:i:2:p:217-228
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-008-9213-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11069-008-9213-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-008-9213-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carel Eijgenraam, 2006. "Optimal safety standards for dike-ring areas," CPB Discussion Paper 62, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    2. Herman Most & Mark Wehrung, 2005. "Dealing with Uncertainty in Flood Risk Assessment of Dike Rings in the Netherlands," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 36(1), pages 191-206, September.
    3. van Manen, Sipke E. & Brinkhuis, Martine, 2005. "Quantitative flood risk assessment for Polders," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 229-237.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jean-Luc Kok & Malte Grossmann, 2010. "Large-scale assessment of flood risk and the effects of mitigation measures along the Elbe River," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 52(1), pages 143-166, January.
    2. T. D. Pol & S. Gabbert & H.-P. Weikard & E. C. Ierland & E. M. T. Hendrix, 2017. "A Minimax Regret Analysis of Flood Risk Management Strategies Under Climate Change Uncertainty and Emerging Information," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1087-1109, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eveline van Leeuwen & Peter Nijkamp & Piet Rietveld, 2009. "Climate Change: From Global Concern To Regional Challenge," Romanian Journal of Regional Science, Romanian Regional Science Association, vol. 3(2), pages 18-38, DECEMBER.
    2. Leeuwen, E.S. van & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 2011. "Climate change: From global concern to regional challenge," Serie Research Memoranda 0018, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    3. Martin Vezér & Alexander Bakker & Klaus Keller & Nancy Tuana, 2018. "Epistemic and ethical trade-offs in decision analytical modelling," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 1-10, March.
    4. Vana Tsimopoulou & Matthijs Kok & Johannes Vrijling, 2015. "Economic optimization of flood prevention systems in the Netherlands," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 891-912, August.
    5. Frans Klijn & Marjolein Mens & Nathalie Asselman, 2015. "Flood risk management for an uncertain future: economic efficiency and system robustness perspectives compared for the Meuse River (Netherlands)," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 1011-1026, August.
    6. Ruud Brekelmans & Dick den Hertog & Kees Roos & Carel Eijgenraam, 2012. "Safe Dike Heights at Minimal Costs: The Nonhomogeneous Case," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1342-1355, December.
    7. Chahim, M. & Brekelmans, R.C.M. & den Hertog, D. & Kort, P.M., 2012. "An Impulse Control Approach to Dike Height Optimization (Revised version of CentER DP 2011-097)," Discussion Paper 2012-079, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Melanie Kunz & Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Lorenz Hurni, 2011. "Visualization of uncertainty in natural hazards assessments using an interactive cartographic information system," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 59(3), pages 1735-1751, December.
    9. Gong, Yu & Liu, Pan & Zhang, Jun & Liu, Dedi & Zhang, Xiaoqi & Zhang, Xiaojing, 2020. "Considering different streamflow forecast horizons in the quantitative flood risk analysis for a multi-reservoir system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    10. Carel Eijgenraam & Ruud Brekelmans & Dick den Hertog & Kees Roos, 2017. "Optimal Strategies for Flood Prevention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1644-1656, May.
    11. Dominik Paprotny & Paweł Terefenko, 2017. "New estimates of potential impacts of sea level rise and coastal floods in Poland," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 85(2), pages 1249-1277, January.
    12. Sebastiaan N. Jonkman & Ruben Jongejan & Bob Maaskant, 2011. "The Use of Individual and Societal Risk Criteria Within the Dutch Flood Safety Policy—Nationwide Estimates of Societal Risk and Policy Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 282-300, February.
    13. Grames, Johanna & Prskawetz, Alexia & Grass, Dieter & Viglione, Alberto & Blöschl, Günter, 2016. "Modeling the interaction between flooding events and economic growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 193-209.
    14. Peter Zwaneveld & Gerard Verweij, 2014. "Safe Dike Heights at Minimal Costs: An Integer Programming Approach," CPB Discussion Paper 277, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Karen Engel & Georg Frerks & Lucia Velotti & Jeroen Warner & Bart Weijs, 2014. "Flood disaster subcultures in The Netherlands: the parishes of Borgharen and Itteren," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 73(2), pages 859-882, September.
    16. Sebastiaan N. Jonkman & Matthijs Kok & Johannes K. Vrijling, 2008. "Flood Risk Assessment in the Netherlands: A Case Study for Dike Ring South Holland," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1357-1374, October.
    17. Pratyay Manna & Mohammed Zafar Anis & Prasun Das & Soumya Banerjee, 2019. "Probabilistic Modeling of Flood Hazard and its Risk Assessment for Eastern Region of India," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1615-1633, July.
    18. Dulebenets, Maxim A. & Abioye, Olumide F. & Ozguven, Eren Erman & Moses, Ren & Boot, Walter R. & Sando, Thobias, 2019. "Development of statistical models for improving efficiency of emergency evacuation in areas with vulnerable population," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 233-249.
    19. Giuliano Di Baldassarre & Attilio Castellarin & Alberto Montanari & Armando Brath, 2009. "Probability-weighted hazard maps for comparing different flood risk management strategies: a case study," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 50(3), pages 479-496, September.
    20. Zwaneveld, P. & Verweij, G. & van Hoesel, S., 2018. "Safe dike heights at minimal costs: An integer programming approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 294-301.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:47:y:2008:i:2:p:217-228. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.