Di Baldassarre, G., Kreibich, H., Vorogushyn, S., Aerts, J., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Barendrecht, M., Bates, P., Borga, M., Botzen, W., Bubeck, P., De Marchi, B., Llasat, C., Mazzoleni, M., Molinari, D., Mondino, E., Mård, J., Petrucci, O., Scolobig, A., Viglione, A., and Ward, P. J., 2018, Hess Opinions_ An interdisciplinary research agenda to explore the unintended consequences of structural flood protection, Hydrology and earth system sciences 22 (2018): 5629–5637. doi_10.5194/hess-2018-333,
URL: http://www.cnr.it/prodotto/i/393250

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 flood protection with two main examples, and then propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk.

Data from https://intranet.cnr.it/people/