Abstract
Abstract. One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as levee effect, safe development paradox or safety dilemma. In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of structural flood protection, and then we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk.
Highlights
One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs
Di Baldassarre et al.: An interdisciplinary research agenda for many centuries in different areas around the world, as they can significantly reduce the probability of flooding
Socioeconomic trends determine the amount of urbanization increase, while the presence of structural flood protection influences the spatial location of new settlements and as such may lead to increased flood exposure
Summary
Economic losses caused by floods are increasing in many regions of the world, and flood risk will likely further increase because of climatic and socio-economic changes (Aerts et al, 2014; Alfieri et al, 2016). Socioeconomic trends determine the amount of urbanization increase, while the presence of structural flood protection influences the spatial location of new settlements and as such may lead to increased flood exposure. This tendency is typically described as the “levee effect”, some scholars have used different terms, such as “safe development paradox” or “safety dilemma” (Burby, 2006; Scolobig and De Marchi, 2009). This phenomenon can offset part of the intended benefits of structural flood protection and, paradoxically, flood risk can even increase in the medium–long term after the introduction or reinforcement of a structural flood protection (Kates et al, 2006; Montz and Tobin, 2008; Di Baldassarre et al, 2013b)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
