- Thumbnail
- Resource ID
- f5af0492-3d1c-11e6-aeef-040146164b01
- Title
- Analysis and evaluation of Flood risk management practice in selected megacities
- Date
- Aug. 31, 2012, 5 p.m., Publication
- Abstract
- Many megacities around the world are facing increasing flood risks, especially within the changing climate. Having a sound and efficient flood risk management system in place is therefore of vital importance. This study selects three megacities – London, Shanghai and Bangkok as case cities, the flood risk management (FRM) practices of which are analysed and evaluated with the aim of examining the strengths and weaknesses of the current FRM practices in megacities. The examination is done through the comparison of the current FRM practices in the three selected megacities and the integrated flood risk management (IFRM) framework and associated indicators and criteria identified from scientific literatures as well as international practice guidelines. A survey in form of questionnaires, together with document examination is used to derive the current FRM practices in the three megacities. Result shows that London has a strong FRM system that fits well to the identified IFRM framework and presents good performance. Shanghai’s FRM system is currently functioning due to its high standard of protection through structural measures. Its main weakness lies on the flood risk management process, especially with respect to effective stakeholder collaboration and long-term strategies for coping with future changes. Bangkok has, among the three megacities, the weakest FRM system. Bangkok’s weakness lies on both the technical aspect, such as flood hazard analysis, and its flood risk management process. Effective stakeholder participation and collaboration as well as the enforcement of FRM supporting legislations are the two priorities that Bangkok needs to work on regarding its FRM process. The evaluation of the current FRM practices in the selected megacities has demonstrated that the shift from defensive approach to IFRM is still on-going and developing cities/countries usually present greater weakness in their FRM processes.
- Edition
- --
- Responsible
- andy
- Point of Contact
- Fraser
- sfraser@worldbank.org
- Purpose
- --
- Maintenance Frequency
- None
- Type
- not filled
- Restrictions
- None
- License
- None
- Language
- eng
- Temporal Extent
- Start
- --
- End
- --
- Supplemental Information
- No information provided
- Data Quality
- --
- Extent
-
- Spatial Reference System Identifier
- EPSG:4326
- Keywords
- (10495, 136, 826, 48, 136, 'Risk Profile', 'risk-profile'), (10496, 375, 826, 48, 375, 'Research Project', 'research-project'), (10497, 383, 826, 48, 383, 'Bangkok', 'bangkok'), (10492, 384, 826, 48, 384, 'Shanghai', 'shanghai'), (10493, 385, 826, 48, 385, 'London', 'london'), (10494, 386, 826, 48, 386, 'Megacities', 'megacities')
- Category
- Geoscientific Information
- Regions
-
Asia
,
Pacific