Review of flood event management Decision Support … · Contract No: GOCE-CT-2004-505420 ... between beginning of failure and inundation), for a range of boundary conditions and

FLOODsite is co-funded by the European CommunitySixth Framework Programme for European Research and Technological Development (2002-2006)

FLOODsite is an Integrated Project in the Global Change and Eco-systems Sub-PriorityStart date March 2004, duration 5 Years

Document Dissemination LevelPU Public PUPP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Review of flood event managementDecision Support Systems

Co-ordinator: Paul Samuels, HR Wallingford, UKProject Contract No: GOCE-CT-2004-505420Project website: www.floodsite.net

Integrated Flood Risk Analysisand Management Methodologies

Report Number T19-07-01Revision Number 1_4_02

Date January 2007

Task Leader WL Delft Hydraulics

http://www.floodsite.net

FLOODsite Project ReportContract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420

Task19_report_M19_1review_v1_4.doc 21 January 2007iii

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

Title Review of flood event management Decision Support SystemsLead Author Rob Maaten

ContributorsMarc Erlich, Pierre-Antoine Versini, Eric Gaume, DarrenLumbroso, Nathalie Asselman, Aljosja Hooijer, Karin deBruijn

Distribution PublicDocument Reference T19-07-01

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Date Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes09/10/06 v1_0_P2 Maaten WL Delft01/11/06 v1_1_P2 Asselman WL Delft22/11/06 v1_2_P2 Maaten WL Delft30/11/06 v1_3_p2 Asselman WL Delft15/01/07 v1_4_p2 Maaten WL Delft Marnix van

der Vat

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The work described in this publication was supported by the European Community’s Sixth FrameworkProgramme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite, Contract GOCE-CT-2004-505420.

DISCLAIMERThis report is a contribution to research generally and third parties should not rely on it in specificapplications without first checking its suitability.

In addition to contributions from individual members of the FLOODsite project consortium, varioussections of this work may rely on data supplied by or drawn from sources external to the projectconsortium. Members of the FLOODsite project consortium do not accept liability for loss or damagesuffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data.

Members of the FLOODsite project consortium will only accept responsibility for the use of materialcontained in this report in specific projects if they have been engaged to advise upon a specificcommission and given the opportunity to express a view on the reliability of the material concernedfor the particular application.

© FLOODsite Consortium


Task19_report_M19_1review_v1_4.doc 21 January 2007iv

SUMMARY

In situations where there is the threat of flooding, different authorities and institutions need to makedecisions concerning the management of the flood event. One of the most decisions to make as part ofthe flood event management process is whether to carry out an evacuation of the area at risk. This isbecause evacuation has perhaps by far the most impact on the population. A Decision Support System(DSS) will be use in assessing the merits of a proposed evacuation. It could help the responsibleorganisations to make decisions on the basis of quantitative information, for example related to theexpected characteristics of the flooding, the number of inhabitants threatened by the flood and on theavailable infrastructure and resources that can be used to evacuate them.

This report addresses the following questions:What are the requirements of a DSS?What DSSs exist already and might serve as an example for a FLOODsite pilot DSS?What are the lessons identified from the use of existing decision support systems?

The scope of flood event management is wide. However, in view of its high impact, mostconsiderations in this report concentrate on the subject evacuation.

With respect to evacuation management in particular, the DSS should include the followinginformation:

Flooding pattern and flooding characteristics (water depths, flow velocities, available timebetween beginning of failure and inundation), for a range of boundary conditions and breachgrowth locations.Location, number and vulnerability of people at risk.Optimal evacuation routes depending on available infrastructure and available time.Vulnerability of area to the hazard e.g. high rise apartments or caravans.Coordination of event response personnel including optimising safe routes for rescue serviceswhere warning time is minimal.

Under the subject existing decision support systems this report contains descriptions of systemsdeveloped in:

The United Kingdom:Environment Agency Management System (AMS) OnlineModelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF)SurreyAlert

The Netherlands:Planning Kit DSSIrma-Sponge DSS Large RiversIVB-DOSESCAPE Decision Support System (European Solutions by Cooperation And Planning inEmergencies)FLIWAS (Flood Information and Warning System)Calamity Information System Regge & Dinkel (CIS-Regge)

France:ALarme Hydrologique Territoriale Automatisée par Indicateur de Risque (ALHTAÏR)ALPHEE: Economical Assessment of flood damages in the Ile-de-France RegionPrévention Anticipation des Crues au moyen des TEchniques Spatiales (PACTES)OSIRIS-inondation

One of the main conclusions of the review of existing systems is that if we want a DSS to be used, itmust be simple and robust rather than sophisticated and comprehensive.


Task19_report_M19_1review_v1_4.doc 21 January 2007v

CONTENTS

Document Information iiiDocument History iiiDisclaimer iiiSummary ivContents v

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................1

2. Requirements of flood event managers to a DSS...........................................................32.1 General considerations .....................................................................................32.2 Information needs and user requirements..........................................................4

3. Review of existing decision support systems ................................................................93.1 General remarks ...............................................................................................93.2 United Kingdom...............................................................................................9

3.2.1 Environment Agency Management System (AMS) Online ..................93.2.2 Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF) ....................... 133.2.3 SurreyAlert ....................................................................................... 16

3.3 The Netherlands ............................................................................................. 193.3.1 Planning Kit DSS .............................................................................. 193.3.2 Irma-Sponge DSS Large Rivers......................................................... 223.3.3 IVB-DOS .......................................................................................... 243.3.4 ESCAPE Decision Support System ................................................... 263.3.5 FLIWAS ........................................................................................... 283.3.6 Calamity Information System Regge & Dinkel (CIS-Regge).............. 32

3.4 France............................................................................................................ 353.4.1 ALHTAÏR (Alarme Hydrologique Territoriale Automatisée par Indicateur de

Risque............................................................................................... 353.4.2 ALPHEE: Economical Assessment of flood damages in the Ile -de-France

Region .............................................................................................. 363.4.3 PACTES (Prévention Anticipation des Crues au moyen des TEchniques

Spatiales) .......................................................................................... 383.4.4 OSIRIS-inondation............................................................................ 403.4.5 Decision Support Systems for other natural hazards........................... 43

4. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................. 44

5. References ................................................................................................................. 49

Tables-

FiguresFigure 3.1 AMS top level “end-to-end” flood incident management level 1 process diagram 10Figure 3.2 AMS diagram index 11Figure 3.3 Example of an AMS level 2 diagram 11Figure 3.4 Example of an AMS level 3 diagram 12Figure 3.5 MDSF screen showing direct economic damage to individual properties 14


Task19_report_M19_1review_v1_4.doc 21 January 2007vi

Figure 3.6 MDSF screen showing potential number of people at risk from flooding and theirvulnerability 15

Figure 3.7 Example of a SurreyAlert event log 17Figure 3.8 Example of the latest news available to the general public via SurreyAlert over the

internet 18Figure 3.9 Overview of possible measures in the ‘Room for the River’ project, supported by the

Planning Kit (courtesy Silva 2001). 20Figure 3.10 Visualisation of the measure “The Weir of Pannerden and embankments along the

Lobberdensche Waard” 21Figure 3.11 The set-up of the DSS Large Rivers. 23Figure 3.12 Modular setup of the Escape DSS 26Figure 3.13 Analysis screen of Escape evacuation 27Figure 3.14 Evacuation planning screen Escape 28Figure 3.15 Example screen of the Regge & Dinkel application. 32Figure 3.16 Functions of the different parts of the central screen. 33Figure 3.17 Suggestion of how the CIS could be used as the DSS for the Scheldt 34Figure 3.18 Diagram of the ALHTAIR flood forecasting system functional architecture 35Figure 3.19 Diagram of the PACTES functional architecture 39Figure 3.20 OSIRIS-inondation : (a) Inundation scenario and (b) intervention instruction sheet 41


Task19_report_M19_1review_v1_4.doc 21 January 2007vii


Task19_report_M19_1review_v1_4.doc Jan 20071

1. Introduction

The flood event management process consists of large number of components that can broadly becategorised into:

(i) Detection;(ii) Forecasting;(iii) Warning;(iv) Response.

These are briefly described below.

(i) Detection

Detection covers the monitoring of the environmental conditions (e.g. rainfall, wave heights, waterlevels, river flows) that act as a source of flooding.

(ii) Forecasting

Flood forecasting covers the estimation of future flood conditions, in the case of rivers this is usuallywave heights. Flood forecasting requires the understanding of meteorological and hydrologicalconditions. Flood forecasting is often carried out using metrological, hydrological and hydraulicmodels.

(iii) Warning

Flood warnings are distinct from forecasts, as they are issued when a flood occurs or is imminent.Flood warnings are often issued to a wide range of stakeholders for various purposes including:

To warn the public of the timing and location of a flood event and give them time to takepreparatory actions;To bring operational and emergency teams to a state of readiness;In extreme cases to give warnings to prepare for evacuation and emergency response.

(iv) Response

The response to a flood event is often wide ranging. It will include predefined and practised actions(e.g. distribution of sand bags to vulnerable households). However, there is often a degree ofimprovisation required to adapt these generic actions to the specific circumstances of the flood event.Evacuation is one of many responses that can be taken to a flood event.

When a flood is forecast different authorities and institutions need to make decisions concerning themanagement of the flood event. One of the most difficult decisions to make as part of the flood eventmanagement process is whether to advise that an area should be evacuated, as this has a significantimpact on the population, as well as often being a costly operation.

The use of a Decision Support System (DSS) specifically aimed at flood event management couldassist the responsible organisations to make decisions concerning the evacuation of various areas onthe basis of forecast information, such as the expected characteristics of the flood, the number ofinhabitants threatened by the flood and the available infrastructure and resources that are required toevacuate them.



It has not yet been decided if the DSS envisaged by the original FLOODsite Description Of Works(DOW) of Task 19 has to cover the complete scope of flood event management or whether it will belimited to evacuation only. Should the DSS only be limited to evacuation there are still choices to bemade, for example does the DSS stop at the decision to evacuate or not to evacuate, or does it alsocover the evacuation itself, the return and the debriefing?

This report addresses the following:

What are the requirements for a flood event management DSS?What DSSs already exist in the UK, the Netherlands and France?What are the lessons that can be identified from the use of existing DSSs?

The report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 deals with what flood management planners and managers would expect a DSS to offerin terms of information and functionalities;Chapter 3 describes a number of existing DSS used in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands andFrance.Chapter 4 provides conclusions and recommendations.



2. Requirements of flood event managers to a DSS

2.1 General considerations

According to the original DOW of Task 19, the Decision Support System (DSS) used during floodevents should incorporate a series of linked models that starts with meteorological and hydrologicalforecasts and ends with evacuation planning. Examples of projects that aimed at the development ofsuch modelling systems include the following EU research projects: European Flood ForecastingSystem (EFFS), European River Flood Occurrence and Total Risk Assessment System (EUROTAS)and Multiple Sensor Precipitation Measurements, Interaction, Calibration and Flood Forecasting(MUSIC). These projects focus on the development of a modelling framework that comprises linkedhydrological and hydraulic models that run relatively fast. For instance, in the case of a FEWS (FloodEarly Warning System), updates of expected water levels are made every 10 to 15 minutes.

A modelling framework that aims at evacuation planning needs to incorporate the results ofhydrological models as well as one or two dimensional flooding inundation models. The latter types ofmodels often have long computational times (e.g. 10 hours or more), which make them less applicablefor real time flood event management. In addition the model schematisation have to be adapted duringthe flood event as a results of changes in the boundary conditions (e.g. water levels) and the locationof breaches in flood defences. so that the model schematisation represents the actual conditions. . In acrisis situation, when the user must be sure to have an answer within a limited amount of timeconcerning the predicted nature of a flood event there is often not time . Hence, probably the bestoption is to develop a DSS that incorporates the results of ‘pre-run’ or ‘pre-cooked’ model scenarios orbest practice procedures.

In broad terms a DSS for flood event management may include:

Results of various inundation scenarios caused by failure of the flood defence system at a numberof locations, under different hydraulic loading conditions and with different breach widths.Knowledge on flood alleviation options e.g. emergency flood storage, temporary flood protection,etc.Flood hazard at vulnerable locations in real time.Safe access/exit routes.Co-ordination of all event response personnel.

The exact requirements will depend on the responsibilities of the user. For instance, in the Netherlandsthe authorities responsible for an evacuation are not the same as those responsible for flood alleviation.In the Netherlands it would not be helpful to combine both tasks in a single DSS. In other countries,however, this combination might be a prerequisite.

In case of evacuation management in particular, the DSS should include the following information:

The flooding pattern and flooding characteristics (e.g. water depths, flow velocities, available timebetween the beginning of the failure of a flood defence and inundation), for a range of boundaryconditions and potential breach growth locations.The location, number and vulnerability of people and the commercial and residential properties atrisk.Optimal evacuation routes depending on available infrastructure and available time that lead tosafe areas (e.g. higher grounds or buildings that will not be inundated).Vulnerability of area to the hazard e.g. in terms of buildings and the people.Information on the different priorities of the zones to be evacuated.



Coordination of event response personnel and the optimisation of safe routes for rescue serviceswhere the warning time is minimal.

When the decision maker receives a warning, they should be able to question the DSS to find outwhich people should be evacuated and what routes should be taken. This answer should be availablewithin a minute or two.

2.2 Information needs and user requirements

The introduction of this report poses the question as to whether the DSS should be limited toevacuation or should cover the complete scope of flood event management. Pending a decision on this,the current chapter will be on evacuation only.

A good basis for a systematic overview of information needs and user requirements is the (draft)Floodsite report of Christiaan Logtmeier of July 2006 on user requirements in flood evacuationmanagement [Ref. 1] . "Users" are the authorities and institutions that have to manage a flood event.The report splits the evacuation process into nine stages:

Organisation of the planningDesigning the planPre-flood awarenessFlood emergency stageAssessment of evacuation optionsEvacuationEmergency shelterReturnDebriefing

Most important for a DSS on evacuation are the following items of each stage: the information neededand the user requirements. They are described as follows.

Information neededThis is the information required in order to meet the objective of the stage in question. It represents apiece of knowledge that needs to be available in order to make a decision in the evacuation processthat is based on sufficient information.

User requirementsThis refers to functionality that serves to deliver certain knowledge to the end users. This functionalitycan have many forms. User requirements comprise a type of analysis or a source of information thatcan support the decision making process. This may range from providing data and performing networkanalysis to performing flood simulations.

The distinction between information and functionality in the Logtmeier report is sometimes rathervague and not always relevant for a DSS. Therefore in the following summary of requirements for aDSS no distinction between the two is made. For each stage of an evacuation process the requirementson information and functionality are as follows.

Organisation of the planning

The information needed in a plan starts with a clear identification of the roles and responsibilities ofstakeholders. This will serve as a structure and guidance in the event of an emergency. It makes rolesand duties clear, not only for the actors themselves but also among actors. In this way it helps to avoidperforming tasks twice and the waste of precious resources.



Stakeholder involvement is important in this stage, as it is their local knowledge and expertise that canbe vital for the successful planning of emergencies and evacuations. They have their own perceptionon risks and know to a certain extent how under the given situation they can guarantee or adapt theirbusiness continuity.

The institutional context determines not only roles and responsibilities of several actors, it also defineshow to act in trans-boundary events (e.g. this includes local, regional and national boundaries). This isimportant since it defines to what extent events are dealt with and at what level. The guiding principleis usually that events are dealt with at the lowest suitable level of governance, and that higher levels ofgovernance are only taken into account in case of trans-boundary effects.

Each actor works within a legal and institutional framework that defines who is responsible for what.This framework will be different in individual countries.

An overview should be gained of what kind, how much and what quality of data is available tosupport the decision making process. If the amount and quality of the required data is not enough then,before any planning can take place, data needs to be gathered and to be assembled.

The user requirements are summarised as follows:

The identification of the planning and evacuation process.An assessment of possible evacuation planning zones and identification of elements at riskincluding people and properties.An assessment as to whether the available data is sufficient and of good enough quality to be usedin decision making.

Designing the plan

An assessment of the available resources needs to be carried out. This assessment is required toascertain the critical thresholds in the response organisations. A limited amount of availableevacuation transport means, means that there may be a need for cooperation with other districts. Suchan assessment helps to define the threshold above which additional resources and help from elsewheremay be needed in case of emergency.

Flooding scenarios are important as they define the state of the system during and after an emergency.The flooding scenario is the only parameter that determines the emergency planning zone (EPZ). TheEPZ is defined as the areas for which an emergency response needs to be organized and which mayneed to be evacuated.

There is a need for forward planning and carrying out a risk assessment. The available that arerequired for an evacuation would be assessed and these would be compared with the amount ofresources available. The objectives of carrying out this planning activity would be as follows::

To understand at what point the situation becomes critical and external help is deemed to benecessary.To understand what tasks and activities need to be carried out and how these should be prioritisedunder different circumstances.

The following information is deemed to be necessary in this stage.

Data on people to evacuate and the resources available. These data should be available within aGIS and should include:

Spatial distribution of inhabitants



Location of inhabitants that cannot evacuate themselves, such as nursing houses, hospitals andschools.Location, extent and capacity of safe areasLay out and the capacity of the road network

Knowledge of the potential flooding pattern, as characterised by the timing of flood, floodingdepth and flow velocity for different scenarios. This information should be available in the form ofanimations, maps or graphs which show water depth and flow velocity as a function of time. Incase of flooding caused by failure of flood defences, an estimate has to be made of the most likelybreach location(s). Since it is not possible to predict the exact location of the breach, enoughscenarios should be assessed in advance to provide an overall picture of potential floodingpatterns.The time required for evacuation. This information would be compiled in advance for the differentflooding scenarios using an evacuation model.The possible number of casualties for different flooding scenarios.

Pre-flood awareness

Arrangements should be made for delivery of an evacuation message containing the main evacuationroutes, description of shelter places, and prescription on how to behave during an evacuation to theinhabitants that are potentially affected. This message should be differentiated according to thesituation of the inhabitants regarding risk, evacuation routes, safe areas and shelter place.

Awareness and preparedness of staff of the involved authorities and services can be increased andmaintained by regular exercises. An important role of these services is to emphasize the coordinationamong different organizations with different roles. Therefore, exercises should be held at differentlevels, ranging from the practical implementation of traffic control to the strategic consultationsbetween the highest representatives of the organisation. To implement higher level exercises floodingand evacuation scenarios are required as input.

Flood emergency stage

An assessment of the elements at risk helps to determine what areas need to be evacuated. It alsoallows a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of evacuation to be made.

An estimate of the risk, either in terms of the number of properties flood, roads or people affected,helps to determine what areas are safe enough for emergency and rescue services to operate in. Aflood event can reach a point at which communities can become isolated and it will be difficult tomaintain a certain level of service or guarantee a certain quality of life in those areas. In some casesthese areas may also need to be evacuated.

An assessment could be made of the merits of an evacuation, such as the number of injuries preventedand lives saved. The risks people are exposed to during an evacuation need to be weighted against therisks people are exposed to staying in the shelter, and the costs associated with providing transport,shelter and food. Expression of this as cost and benefits, if possible at all (e.g. loss of lives), willprobably not be done in view of its political aspects. A politician will not explicitly accept loss of livesto save money.

In this stage information is needed on:The likelihood of the occurrence of a flooding event;The possible size and extent of the event;The elements at risk both due to direct contact with water as well as due to indirect contact withwater;The possible number of casualties;The time required for evacuation;



The possibility to evacuate as determined by the current and future state of the road network andby the time left for evacuation.

The ultimate goal is to make an informed decision on the need for evacuation and the associated risks.To achieve this an analysis of several factors needs to be carried out, which should provide thedecision maker with a better idea of the advantages and disadvantages of evacuation as an option.

Assessment of evacuation options

To assess evacuation options information is needed on many aspects. It is important to know how therisk develops during a possible evacuation.

An important resource in an evacuation is the road network. The road network needs to be managed inorder to have it functioning in an optimal way. For this it is important to assess who will use thenetwork at what time and how much of the network is still available as the event develops. Theavailability of the network determines what areas can and cannot be reached. This information isnecessary for civil protection authorities since it allows them to assess the amount of risk to which therescue services will possibly be exposed during their operations. Not only is it necessary to have a"snapshot" of the networks availability, also the development of availability in the coming hours ordays is deemed to be an important asset as it not only determines who and what can be evacuated, italso provides input in the planning of rescues services.

If flooding pattern and stage of the road network differs significantly from the "pre-cooked" scenarios,it might be necessary to carry out new estimates with the evacuation model for the actual situation.Due to the required calculation time and the complexity, it is hardly feasible to calculate new floodingpatterns. However, a traffic model for the road network might be flexible enough to make simulationsthat are adapted to the actual or expected situation.

Evacuation

Information is needed on who to warn and with what message. Given the delineation of the emergencyplanning zone a list of household addresses can be prepared containing the exact households which aresupposed to be evacuated. The following step is to prepare a list with key information on theevacuation. A selection of this information should be communicated to the public.

The subsequent steps concern:A list of addresses that need to be reached.A message to the public containing: collecting points, routes and shelters.Instructions for how to behave during an evacuation for the public.Registration system for determining the end of evacuation (who is evacuated and who is not).

Detailed information about the amount of people to be transported, their locations within theemergency planning zone and their destination needs to be disseminated to the proper authorities. Aproper traffic management needs to become operational on the basis of the evacuation plan. Otheritems that need attention are:

The evacuation of livestock.Partial evacuation of children and elderly people, while others would look after houses and carryout flood fighting duties (e.g. on dikes that seem close to failure).Legal background (law enforcement, what to do if someone does not want to move).



Emergency shelter

An inventory should be available of large buildings that provide enough basic facilities to shelter toevacuated amount of people for a certain period of time. In addition an inventory needs to be made ofnearby suppliers of necessary material for sheltering people (e.g. beds, linen, sanitary equipment, food,drinks).

Return

What are the risks in the emergency planning zone the evacuees return? A continuous assessment ofrisk in the emergency planning zone is needed in order to know at what time the area is safe enough toreturn to.

Particular attention should be given to:Clean-up activities (e.g. dangerous materials, dead animals, infected water).Disinfection.

Debriefing

In this stage the stakeholders can compare the actions they have taken in the context of the event withtheir pre-determined objectives. Reports and logs of actions will be the basis for this. If largediscrepancies exist these need to be explained and should lead up-dating of existing evacuation andresponse plans.



3. Review of existing decision support systems3.1 General remarks

The aim of Task 19 is to develop a DSS that can help the responsible organisations in taking decisionsrelated to flood incident and emergency management during floods. The DSS will focus in particularon evacuation and rescue. This review describes the existing DSSs for flood event management.However, several DSSs used for long-term flood risk management are described as well. The reasonfor this is that some valuable lessons can be learned from them that are of help in deciding on thefunctionalities and architecture of the DSS for flood event management.

In principle the description of each DSS contains the following aspects: short description,architecture, functionality, data requirements, application of the decision support system, current endusers, and flood events in which the decision support system has been used. However, for some DSSsthere was not sufficient information to describe each of these aspects.

3.2 United Kingdom3.2.1 Environment Agency Management System (AMS) Online

DescriptionThe Environment Agency has recently introduced a system for flood incident management on itsinternal intranet known as the Environment Agency Management System (AMS) Online. The AMSforms the basis of a decision support framework for flood incident management within theEnvironment Agency. It contains a structured set of process diagrams and documents on flood incidentmanagement.

ArchitectureThe AMS comprises the following components:

A series of diagrams showing the “end-to-end” flood incident management process in the form ofa series of nested diagrams.A series of documents and procedures relevant to the flood incident management processcovering:

Guidance.Policy.Procedure.An overview of the flood incident management process.Definitions of roles and responsibilities.Work instructions.Other supporting documents.

Processes and activities related to flood incident management.Departments within the Environment Agency and their roles in the flood incident managementprocess.

The AMS has a series of nested process diagrams that define the Environment Agency’s flood incidentmanagement process from end-to-end: from detection, forecasting, warning through to response anddelivery. The top level (i.e. level 1) diagram is shown in Figure 3.1. The AMS process diagrams havea series of levels ranging from 1 to 4 shown in Figure 3.2. The process diagrams are organised in fourlevels:



AMS – Level 1 process diagramsDetection and forecasting - DevelopmentDetection and forecasting incident managementFlood warning and responseWarning and response - Development

AMS – Level 2 process diagramsCommunicate.Gather data.Inform and liaise with interested parties.Make a warning decision.Manage information, resources and equipment.Manage warning dissemination and review.Manage.Predict.Prepare (carry out routine activities) – Detection and forecasting.Prepare (carry out routine activities) – Warning and response.Produce internal reports.Respond.Summarise.

AMS – Level 3 process diagramsDeal with enquiries.Issue a warning.Liaise with professional partners.Maintain flooding information.

AMS – Level 4 process diagramsField recording and reporting.

Figure 3.1 AMS top level “end-to-end” flood incident management level 1 process diagram



Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4 show examples of the Level 2 and Level 3 diagrams for various parts of theflood incident management process. It should be noted that the AMS is still in the process ofdevelopment and it is expected that the lower level diagrams will be expanded and revised.

Figure 3.2 AMS diagram index

Figure 3.3 Example of an AMS level 2 diagram



Figure 3.4 Example of an AMS level 3 diagram

FunctionalityThere are three main functions of the Environment Agency’s AMS. These are as follows:

(i) To bring together documents and procedures related to flood incident management(ii) To link together the processes and activities related to flood incident management(iii) To provide details of the roles and responsibilities of the Environment Agency with respect to

flood incident management

These functions are discussed below.

Documents and procedures

The AMS contains links to some 75 documents. These cover guidance, procedures and workinstructions that are relevant to flood incident management. The guidance covers topics ranging fromthe Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to flood warning procedures and processes. The procedures covermany aspects of the Environment Agency National Flood Forecasting System (NFFS).

Processes and activities related to flood incident management

For each process and activity related to flood incident management there is a link to a relevantdocument, these cover process steps such as:

Make decision to issue a warning.Make initial assessment of likely incident duration and size.Make operational decisions.Manage health and safety.Prepare forecast reports.Prioritise data gathering.



Prioritise forecast requirement.Prioritise response.Procedures review/update.Provide information for media.

Links to relevant Environment Agency departments in flood incident management

The AMS provides a link to relevant Environment Agency departments that are related to floodincident management. This provides details of their roles and functions.

Data requirementsThe AMS requires the following:

Representation of the flood incident management process in the form of a series of nesteddiagrams.Environment Agency document and procedures related to flood incident management.The roles of the various departments within the Environment Agency.

Application of decision support systemThe AMS is not a decision support system as such. The AMS is a management system and is used todefine the roles and processes involved in flood incident management

Current end usersThe AMS is currently used solely by the Environment Agency in England and Wales to help to definethe process and procedures used for flood incident management.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThe AMS is not used for specific flood incidents. It is used to define the framework for flood incidentmanagement that the Environment Agency works within.

3.2.2 Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF)

DescriptionThe Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF) is used by the Environment Agency forlong-term planning of flood risk. However, in the future the MDSF may be used for pre-floodincident management planning. The MDSF is a tool that can assist in the development of CatchmentFlood Management Plans (CFMPs), Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs), strategies and other floodrisk management studies. The focus of the MDSF is on the assessment of the flood risk in terms ofdirect economic damages and social impacts of flood and coastal management policy options undercurrent and future climates. However, in future the Environment Agency may modify the MDSF toestimate the flood risk for “pre-run” flood incidents in order for them to improve their response tofloods.

ArchitectureThe MDSF is not a new Geographical Information System (GIS). However, it does add functionalityto ArcView. The MDSF utilises a GIS environment, so visualization and results are in standard GISformats. Data can be added or removed from the system consistent with adding and removing layerswithin a GIS. The MDSF system has no restrictions on spatial resolutions and can be used at regional,catchment and local scales. Owing to its open architecture, user support and training, it is used widelyacross England and Wales for flood risk management.



FunctionalityThe MDSF provides a decision support framework to facilitate common approaches and tools anddeliver efficiency gains with respect to planning and flood response. The system allows for scenariosto be run through the system, providing an indication of flood damage for various scenarios. Flooddamage is estimated as economic damage to both properties and agricultural land and as the number ofpeople potentially at risk from flooding. Typical screen shots of the MDSF are shown in Figures 3.5and 3.6.

Figure 3.5 MDSF screen showing direct economic damage to individual properties



Figure 3.6 MDSF screen showing potential number of people at risk from flooding and theirvulnerability

Data requirementsThe MDSF requires the following data:

Geo-referenced property database detailing the following:- Type of property, some 50 different types of property are available;- Ground floor area of the property;- Threshold level of the property (i.e. the level at which the property starts to flood);

Floodwater depth versus economic damage curves for the different properties;Floodwater depths for a number of design flood scenarios;Agricultural land classification;Floodwater depth versus economic damage curves for the different types of agricultural landclassesGeo-referenced population data;Socio-economic data (e.g. age of population, wealth, car ownership, employment) to establish thesocial vulnerability of the population;Digital terrain model.

Application of decision support systemIn the future the MDSF could easily be used to assist with pre-flood incident management planning byidentifying the following for a number of pre-run scenarios:

Areas at greatest risk from flooding both in terms of number of people and economic assets.Assessment of areas where the risk of failure of flood defences is greatest (e.g. the probabilities ofbreaching and overtopping of flood defences will be estimated in the latest version of the MDSF).



Evacuation times for population centres. This would be calculated using an evacuation model orprocedure and incorporated as a layer in the MDSF.Provide an estimate of the coping capacity for areas during a major flood incident.Provide an indication of the probability of infrastructure relevant to flood incident management(e.g. police stations, incident management centres, transport network) being inundated during aflood event.

A review of flood incident management in the UK has indicated that the emergency responseorganisations require the following:

Likely flood extent and floodwater depth.The timing of the event.Whether key transport routes are to be affected;What is at risk and where the most vulnerable receptors (e.g. people and properties) are.The likelihood of failure of flood defence assets.

As indicated above the MDSF would be able to provide all of the above to emergency responders.

Current end usersThe Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF) is used by the Environment Agency forlong-term planning of flood risk. In the future the Environment Agency may modify the MDSF toestimate the flood risk for "pre-run" flood incidents in order for them to improve their response tofloods. Owing to its open architecture, user support and training, it is used widely across England andWales for flood risk management.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThe MDSF is not used directly for managing flood events owing to the fact that it is a long termplanning tool.

3.2.3 SurreyAlert

DescriptionThis is a web site secure site that can only be accessed by Surrey's Police, Fire and Rescue, andAmbulance Services, Surrey County Council and the 11 District and Borough Councils in Surrey inEngland. It is used to exchange information securely and in “real-time” during major incidents in thecounty of Surrey. These incidents are not just specifically related to flooding but to all incidents forexample an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, or a serious road accident.

It is also used to hold the organisations' useful information, so that all emergency responders haveaccess to, using the principle of “gather information once, and use it many times.” The use of thistype of intranet system for both major and minor incidents is important in providing a medium for fastand effective communications between multiple agencies.

ArchitectureThe SurreyAlert system comprises two main parts as follows:

SurreyAlert extranet.SurreyAlert public web site.

The SurreyAlert system is a secure site that can only be accessed by Surrey's Police, Fire & Rescueand Ambulance Services, Surrey County Council and the 11 District and Borough Councils in Surrey.



It is used to exchange information securely and in 'real-time' during major incidents in Surrey. It isalso used to hold the organisations' useful information, that all partners have access to.

The SurreyAlert system includes an event log an example of which is shown in Figure 3.7. Figure 3.7is a small sample of an event log. Initially the events are ordered by time, with the most recent entryat the top. The time, event type, event summary, who logged it, and from which organisation are alllisted for each event. If an event is in response to another event this is displayed too in the appropriatecolumn. Events are added, via the 'Add Log Entry' button and the 'Refresh Log' button is used toobtain any updates.

Figure 3.7 Example of a SurreyAlert event log

FunctionalityThe SurreyAlert public web site is available to the general public and provides them with a snapshotof the latest incidents. An example of a typical screen that the public would be able to access is shownin Figure 3.8.



Figure 3.8 Example of the latest news available to the general public via SurreyAlert over theinternet

Data requirementsAll types of information that is important to share between emergency managers.

Application of decision support systemOne of the major issues that has been highlighted by various reports into the Environment Agency’sflood incident management system is that communication between the various actors is crucial to goodincident management. It is often difficult for all the actors involved in responding to floods (e.g. thepolice, fire services, the Environment Agency) to know what actions have been implemented andwhen. A system such as the SurreyAlert system used nationally by the Environment Agency inconjunction with other emergency responders would help to ease these concerns.

Current end usersThe SurreyAlert System is currently only used in the county of Surrey. It is used by Surrey’s Police,Fire & Rescue and Ambulance Services, Surrey County Council and the 11 District and BoroughCouncils in Surrey.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThe SurreyAlert system is not specifically for flood event management but for emergencymanagement in general. However, the SurreyAlert system does give information on the flood status ofrivers in Surrey, using an interactive map.



3.3 The Netherlands3.3.1 Planning Kit DSS

DescriptionThe Planning Kit was commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Public Works to support the ‘Room forthe Rhine Branches’ project; it was completed in 2004. It provides both policy makers and rivermanagers in the Netherlands with a tool to evaluate a large number of alternative river designmeasures, taking into account the effects on flood stages, nature, ecology and costs. The Planning Kitserves to support decision-making on river designs for the Dutch Rhine Branches, and to communicatewith stakeholders. The DSS does not provide details of the origin of flood waves, nor of flood impacts.The simplified web-based version of the Planning Kit, called the “Water Manager” (seewww.ruimtevoorderivier.nl) allows the general public to play with river design measures, tounderstand the issues involved in selection of strategies and to test different alternatives. Both thePlanning Kit and the Water Manager were developed by WL | Delft Hydraulics.

In the Netherlands, the river design of large rivers is legally required to be able to accommodate aspecified design discharge. The design discharge of the Rhine has a probability of 1/1250 per year, andis determined from a river discharge record that is now just over 100 years long. The problem theNetherlands are facing now is that, as a result of high peak discharges in 1993 and 1995, the designdischarge increased from 15000 m3/s to 16000 m3/s at Lobith (near the Dutch-German border). Thecurrent Rhine river system has insufficient capacity for this flow. Dike strengthening is required,unless measures are taken to lower the water level associated with the design discharge. Because theDutch government aims to limit dike strengthening and focuses instead on creating “room for therivers” (which is considered more sustainable), measures that lower water levels need to be evaluated.These measures are shown in Figure 3.9.

To further complicate matters, the design discharge may increase even further due to climate change,to about 18,000 m3/s in 2100. The sea level also continues to rise, increasing backwater effects in theestuaries and rivers. According to the ‘no-regret’ principle, measures taken in the near future shouldstill be sensible when design discharge increases even further. Therefore, measures must be evaluatedboth for the short-term 16,000 m3/s target and for the possible longer-term 18,000 m3/s target.

The stated aim of the Planning Kit is, to give all stakeholders/users the possibility to easily define acombination of measures to safely transport 16,000 or 18,000 m3/s from Lobith to the sea withoutraising the dikes, considering all the criteria that the user considers important. These measures areplanned to be taken before 2015 (thus in the next 10 to 15 years), however, their use for the next 100years is explored by using the design discharge expected by 2100. The DSS allows for the definitionof strategies. It provides a tool to select and combine different measures and it provides an overview ofthe effects of individual measures as well as of the strategies. The DSS does allow the selection of onelong-term scenario for the increase of the design discharge. No scenarios for other types ofdevelopments can be applied.

ArchitectureThe data in the DSS were obtained from many previous studies in which possible measures wereidentified and analysed in dialogue with local authorities and stakeholders. By studying the differentRhine Branches and designing measures for each particular site, a total number of approximately 700measures was defined. The measures considered include the removal of hydraulic obstacles, loweringof groynes, lowering of floodplains, setting back of dikes, etc. For each of these measures, the effecton flood levels was determined by means of a two-dimensional computational model (WAQUA), andthe results of these computations were stored in a database. Because of the large number of options onthe one hand and the large number of stakeholders and actors on the other, the selection process isextremely complicated. In the selection of measures, not only the safety objective should be met, butalso objectives regarding cost efficiency, ecological infrastructure, landscape and cultural heritage.

http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl)



Therefore, an extensive number of effects (approximately 100) have been determined and stored in thedatabase for each measure, varying from costs and excavation quantities to the impact on nature andbird life.

Figure 3.9 Overview of possible measures in the ‘Room for the River’ project, supported by thePlanning Kit (courtesy Silva 2001).

The Planning Kit contains a management response module and a decision support module.

Management response moduleThe Planning Kit does include a clear and very detailed module for management response: measureselection and combination of measures is what it was designed for. The developers of the Planning Kitare the only ones who can add information to the Planning Kit; users cannot add additionalinformation or measures, they can only combine information that is already present. The informationin the DSS was obtained by extensive model calculations, cost assessments and GIS analyses.

Measure locations are also shown in graph and map form. Furthermore, a picture, an aerial photographand an image of each measure are included. These pictures give an overview of the area, the currentsituation and the expected result of the measure. By using help functions and further informationfunctions additional information can easily be obtained.

Decision support moduleTo support decision making, detailed information on each measure is available and is easily provided.This includes pictures, maps, water level effects, costs, effects on land use, nature, etc. The combinedeffect of numerous measures is also clearly shown in score tables. The Planning Kit allows thecomparison of different alternatives across a wide range of effects, such as removed agricultural area,additional area of nature, cubic meters of soil that needs to be removed, costs, etc. The effects are notcombined or weighted. In other words the DSS does not provide the user with an optimal solution. Itonly provides all relevant criteria and data on which a decision can be based. The uncertainty in theresulting figures is not indicated.

FunctionalitySee above description.

Data requirementsAll kinds of information that describe measures and their effects in river design for the Dutch Rhinebranches.



Application of decision support systemStepwise, the Planning Kit is used as follows:1. The user must choose how to divide the extra discharge of 1,000 m3/s or 3,000 m3/s

(accommodating a design discharge of 16,000 or 18,000 m3/s compared to the former designdischarge of 15000 m3/s) at the Dutch-German border over the different Rhine branches Waal,Nederrijn en IJssel. Dependent on this choice the Planning Kit shows the rise of the water levels(hydraulic design objective).

2. After that, the user can start to play with the available measures to reduce the water levels on allthe Rhine branches. The user is directly confronted with the possibilities or impossibilities of hischoice. Besides the effect on the water levels, the Planning Kit shows the user visualisations of allmeasures (photo’s, definition sketches, aerial photos) (see Figure 3.10) and provides an overviewof all the other effects that are determined.

3. After the user has put together a combination of measures that meets the set hydraulic designobjectives, the Planning Kit gives an overview of the costs and a summary of the effects.Furthermore, it provides the user with the possibility to compare different combinations ofmeasures.

Figure 3.10 Visualisation of the measure “The Weir of Pannerden and embankments along theLobberdensche Waard”

Current end usersThe Planning Kit has been developed in cooperation with the users and stakeholders over a period ofthree years, and has been the main tool in the decision-making process of the ‘Room for the RhineBranches’ project. During this period the Planning Kit has grown to become the communal knowledgebase for all parties involved in the process around the Rhine Branches. All parties, policy makers



(State Secretary for Water Management, Members of Parliament), river managers, technical engineers,inhabitants and local authorities have been using this tool to get insight in the problems in the riverbasin and to find solutions. The widespread acceptance of the tool is based on the fact that all involvedparties could introduce their own knowledge of the River System to the tool. A strong point of thisDSS is its user friendliness and the absence of complex hydraulic models which require specialistknowledge - everyone can use this DSS. Because of its simple use, the tool was able to support andfacilitate the learning process for people without a technical background and it enlarged the knowledgeof the river basin. Another strong point of the DSS is the clear and narrow scope on actual measuresthat can help achieve a clear goal (achieving 16000 m3/s discharge capacity in a limited stretch of theRhine), which allows users to focus on the aspects that are really relevant in decision making: actualmeasures.

To be able to use the Planning Kit more effectively in the process of giving information to theinhabitants involved, a simplified version has been developed, named the Water Manager. The WaterManager uses the same database with hydraulic effects and costs but does not present all the details.The Water Manager is free to use for everyone. It is available on the Internet: (www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl; in Dutch).

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThe Planning Kit was not intended for flood events.

3.3.2 Irma-Sponge DSS Large Rivers

DescriptionThe DSS Large Rivers is a decision support system for water managers and spatial planners, whichsupports the design of lowland rivers. The DSS was developed by WL | Delft Hydraulics within theIRMA-SPONGE Programme, and finalized by 2002. The project aimed to produce a generic DSS tosupport the ‘planning and assessment of river landscapes’, while applying the tool to a specific type ofmeasure at specific locations: possible retention areas in North Rhine Westphalia, not far upstream ofthe Dutch border.

The DSS allows the definition of new landscape planning measures in lowland rivers, and hydrologic,ecologic and economic assessment of these measures. It also enables users to define and analysestrategies. Measures are defined in a GIS (ArcView) and translated automatically to changes in themodel schematisations within the DSS. The measure definition method is consistent and clearlydocumented. The DSS contains an easy-to-use Case Management module. The DSS serves as a tool toincrease transparency, reproducibility, and it improves communication because it provides all userswith the same information based on the same assumptions. The DSS is not limited to measures with aspecific time horizon. It has no facilities to develop long-term scenarios.

ArchitectureTranslation of engineering measures into model schematisationsOne of the most important strong points of this DSS is the standardized method to translate measuresinto changes in the different model schematisations. When describing a lowland river from amanagement-technical perspective, the following main elements can be identified: a navigationchannel (low flow channel), groynes, embankments, floodplains and dikes. In the different modeltypes these elements need to be represented differently. The DSS thus ensures that spatial planners andriver managers do not need to worry about the way measures and changes in any of the elements mustbe schematised in the different models.

DSS modules

http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl;



The DSS combines a relational database, a GIS, a 1D and a 2D hydrodynamic model, a 1D and a 2Decologic model, case management tools and tools for the generation of reports (see Figure 3.11). Allthese modules focus on river design. The clear indication of the different steps in the design processand the presentation in maps and graphs enlarges the user friendliness. The model requires theavailability of schematisations for the different models included in the DSS. For the Dutch largerivers, such schematisations are available. For other rivers, developing such schematisations requiresconsiderable effort and much time.

Figure 3.11 The set-up of the DSS Large Rivers.

The management response moduleThe DSS Large Rivers supports the assessment of measures influencing the low flow channel(riverbed), measures influencing the floodplain and measures outside the river channel. At present,river managers actually consider three different measures outside the riverbed, namely floodways(which are sometimes called “green rivers”), detention areas and dike-relocations.

The decision support moduleThe DSS Large Rivers calculates the effects of the measures on water levels and discharges, costs,culture historical values, ecotype distribution, distribution of species (flora and fauna) andsedimentation in the navigation channel. Uncertainties in the results are not assessed. By assessing thewide range of effects mentioned, the DSS integrates knowledge of different disciplines and stimulatescooperation between spatial planners, river engineers and ecologists and it structures the evaluationprocess.

FunctionalityThe system is based on the following four step approach in decision-making on river design measures:

1. Explorative measures at the scale of river stretches can be defined and studied. This gives insightinto the nature of the problem at stake and potential measures available to deal with them.

2. These measures can be combined to alternatives and their effects can be assessed.3. The results of these explorative studies can be transferred into landscaping plans and studied on

the scale of individual floodplains.4. Detailed designs of the floodplains can be evaluated.

To support this approach the DSS Large Rivers provides:



Access to information valuable in the process of identification and development of landscapeplans.Tools to sketch plans and measures which can then be evaluated quickly with the one dimensionalmodel.Interactive detailed design facilities to develop detailed plans on the scale of individualfloodplains.Two dimensional models to assess the effects of these detailed plans.

Data requirementsAll kinds of information that describe measures and their effects in river design for the Dutch branchesof the Rhine and Meuse.

Application of decision support systemThe DSS was developed in cooperation with the users, who are in this case the river modellers andriver managers. It was distributed to the RIZA department of the Ministry of Public Works. Thesewere using the DSS during and just after the development project, but have stopped using it due to thecomplexity of upgrades and network issues. There is a helpdesk and a website on this DSS.

As mentioned above, the strong point of this DSS is that it provides a standard consistent transparentmethod to define measures and to translate these to model schematisations and assess the effects ofmeasures. It provides all users of this DSS with the same information and uses always the sameassumptions.

Its most important weak point is that it is not useful for any single person: it is not useful for decisionmakers, since it requires knowledge on hydraulic models. It is also not very useful for modellers,because they do not need the interface around their model. They are able to use their model withoutthis extra interface. However, this weak point is at the same time considered a strong point of the DSSalso: the DSS requires different experts to cooperate with the decision-maker: spatial planners need tosketch their measures, modellers need to assist them and help them to calculate the effects of theirmodels and everyone, including decision makers can study the effects of the designs. The DSS thusserves as a platform for communication between different experts and decision-makers. Becauseeveryone’s input is stored in one system in a consistent way, the interaction between the differentpersons is more structured and more transparent. The DSS is not easily transferable to other largerivers than the Rhine and Meuse, since it requires schematizations for several models (SOBEK,WAQUA and Ledess).

Current end usersThe DSS is not used anymore, due to the complexity of upgrades and network issues.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThe DSS Large Rivers was not intended for flood event management.

3.3.3 IVB-DOSDescriptionIVB-DOS is a Dutch abbreviation for “Integrated Exploration of the Lower Rivers – DiscussionSupporting System”. The DSS is thus not meant to be a “decision supporting tool” but a “discussionsupporting tool” which is an important difference. The DSS was developed in the context of a largeresearch project which aimed at the exploration of effects of water level reducing measures on theriver stretches near the coast. The exploration should take into account legal safety standards (designdischarges and water levels) and should result in a strategy that involves as little dike strengthening aspossible and that harms nature as little as possible. The proposed measures should be implemented



between 2000 and 2015. However the exploration should also consider the effects of the measures inthe period between 2015 and 2050 in order to prevent future regret (Ref.2, Van der Linden, 2001).

IVB-DOS consists of a combination of a GIS, a database and several models. The Ministry of PublicWorks (through it RIZA department) assigned WL | Delft Hydraulics to develop this DSS, which wascompleted in 2001. It should be used by expert groups and committees within the IVB project such asthe work group “spatial planning”. The IVB-DOS consists of tools to define structural river designmeasures, to visualise hydraulic, morphologic and ecological and economic effects of measures andstrategies and to show the consequences of the measures on current and future spatial planning issues.Scenarios are built from projections of river discharges, sea level rise, operation rules for flooddefence structures, a schematisation of the initial morphological description of the rivers and estuary.

ArchitectureThe IVB-DOS consists of four subsystems:1. A presentation system to explore and analyse data.2. A definition system to define and combine measures.3. A calculation system (see picture below).4. A data management system in which all data is stored.

First, measures and scenarios are defined in the DSS. Next, measures and scenarios are applied tocases. Thirdly, the effects of these cases on water levels, discharges and biotopes are calculated.Fourthly, these effects are translated to changes in the area available for agriculture, housing, heritage,nature etc. Finally, costs are assigned to these changes. The uncertainties in the resulting figures arenot assessed. The effects are presented in tables and on maps. The results can easily be exported toenable further analysis with other software packages such as Excel.

The DSS contains a clear management response module and decision support module. Themanagement support module allows the definition and combination of measures. The decision supportmodule presents the assessed effects. The DSS is GIS-based, thus all information is selectable frommaps.

FunctionalitySee above description.

Data requirementsThe DSS includes hydrodynamic and ecological models, it requires a lot of input data and modelschematisations. It is therefore very difficult to use it for other areas.

Application of decision support systemThe use of the first version of the DSS was evaluated. Van der Linden (2001) concludes that the DSSis not used as intended, for several reasons:1. Because the results of both the hydrodynamic model as the ecological model were considered

unreliable.2. Furthermore, the expectations on the possibilities and functions of the DSS were very high.

Eventually, working with an instrument that has too many functions and possibilities proved to bevery difficult, because it makes the system inflexible. In order to manage the complex data flowsin the DSS, the rules for definition of measures and analysis of effects needed to be very strict.The users indicated that at present, they prefer to work with the individual models and not with theDSS combining the models.

3. Finally, the users mentioned that they prefer the possibility to consult experts on effect ofmeasures. In the DSS most effects are assessed by certain knowledge tables based on calculationrules. Since not all expert knowledge can be translated into knowledge tables, experts are stillneeded for the final judgement.



DataModules

Decision module

Alarm

Facts andfigures

Advice

Decision

Log-book

Static (GIS)

Weatherforecast

HISChecklists

Planning

Evacuation

The strong positive point of the DSS was that because of its strict rules, all measures were clearlydefined and all analysis methods were clearly documented, transparent and reproducible.

Current end usersThe DSS is not used anymore.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThe DSS was not intended for flood event management.

3.3.4 ESCAPE Decision Support SystemDescriptionESCAPE stands for European Solutions by Co-operation And Planning in Emergencies). ESCAPE isa joint venture between the Province of Zeeland (in the Netherlands), the Provinces of Oost-Vlaanderen and West-Vlaanderen (Belgium) and the county of Essex (England). Co-operationbetween these countries on water management and sharing their experience is seen as the first steptowards broad co-operation between all the countries that border the North Sea. In contrast to otherprojects, which aim to prevent flooding in coastal areas around the North Sea, ESCAPE tries tominimise the effects of flooding. One of the project's aims is to raise awareness, which it does byholding conferences at which disaster relief workers, emergency service representatives, scientists andothers directly involved, share their knowledge and experience. The project was executed betweenSeptember 2002 and September 2004.

The framework of the ESCAPE project also comprised the development of a Decision Support System(DSS). The ESCAPE DSS ensures a structured decision-making process during an impending or anactual disaster. The system calculates the time required to evacuate a struck area, as well as the bestroute to use in doing so. In making these decisions, the system makes use of information supplied bystaff of the provincial government. Information pertaining to the area of the disaster, number ofinhabitants, anticipated water level (through the High water Information System, [Ref. 3] and trafficroutes must be entered.

ArchitectureThe DSS has a modular setup (Figure 3.12). The core is the decision module, where on the basis of theavailable information (weather forecast, HIS) and a set of decision rules, the advice to evacuate or notis given. The static data (in the Data module) refer to number of people in the threatened area, theamount of people that will need help during an evacuation (e.g. elderly, disabled), exit and receptionpoints, etc.

Figure 3.12 Modular setup of the Escape DSS



FunctionalityThe DSS is arranged like a film script. The script contains different scenarios (e.g. locations of dikebreaches) in which the nature and the probable development of the emergency are sketched. A riskanalysis is added to the most important decisions. This risk analysis contains information about theprobability that the threat proceeds otherwise than expected and includes an assessment of the possibleconsequences. When all the information has been entered, the DSS advises the emergency staff as towhether or not to evacuate. With the DSS, the staff has a tool in hand that will help them during acrisis.

The DSS uses as input:1. The results of inundation calculations with a Sobek1D2D hydraulic model. This model calculates

the progress of an inundation in a dike ring area in terms of flow velocities and inundation depthsas a function of time. Calculations are made for specific dike breach location (one breach at atime). For each breach several scenarios are considered on the growth of the breach in time (width,depth) and on the stability of some interior dikes in the dike ring, which create compartmentswithin the dike ring. The compartments may reduce the extent of the flooded area, or anyhow slowdown the inundation process.

2. Calculations on damage and casualties with the HIS-SSM computer model. This model uses theresults of the inundation calculations and various data on spatial distribution of population,industry, infrastructure, land use, etc. On the basis of these data the model calculates the directdamage (e.g. devastated houses), as well as indirect damage due to the inundation (e.g. stoppedsupply of goods to firms outside the inundated areas). The model also calculates the number ofpeople affected (more precisely: got wet by the inundation) and estimates the number of fatalitieswhen no evacuation is undertaken.

On the basis of this input the DSS/Escape calculates the time which is required to evacuate a certainarea completely. For the time being the model applies a fixed total time of 13 hours for decisionmaking, response and preparation for any area in Zeeland. This is the period that precedes the actualevacuation. The time needed for the actual evacuation is calculated by the model on the basis of thenumber of inhabitants, the capacity of the roads in the area, and the potential exit routes. Apart fromthe calculation of the evacuation time a time schedule is made, which shows the number of evacuatedpeople (Figure 3.13) and the activities to be carried out during the evacuation with an indication whichactivities are on the critical path. (see Figure 3.14)

Figure 3.13 Analysis screen of Escape evacuation



Figure 3.14 Evacuation planning screen Escape

Data requirementsThe required data to develop and run an inundation model comprise detailed elevation measurements,a range of hydraulic loadings (water levels), information on most likely breach locations and breachgrowth. Data needed for the HIS-SSM model are supplied with the software. No additional data areneeded. The transport model is required to compute evacuation times. Computation of evacuationtimes also requires information on number of inhabitants at different locations in the potentiallyflooded area.

Application of decision support systemThe evacuation model implemented in the DSS ESCAPE can be applied to any area that is prone toflooding, and for which evacuation plans need to be developed. The DSS ESCAPE can be used in theoperational mode during periods of impending high water levels and flooding.The system was applied in a pilot study of the Province of Zeeland on the preparation of floodemergency management for dike ring area 31 (Zuid-Beveland).

Current end usersThe ESCAPE DSS is now being implemented by the Province of Zeeland. They plan to use the DSSfor the development of detailed evacuation plans.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedNo flood events have occurred so far for which the DSS could be used.

3.3.5 FLIWASDescriptionIn times of (threatening) high water, reliable and up-to-date information is of vital importance. For thisreason, a joint Dutch/German cooperation developed a sophisticated system for high water and



emergency management: the FLood Information and Warning System, or in brief referred to asFLIWAS. FLIWAS enables decision-makers, water managers and other people concerned to take theright decisions at imminent high water levels.

FLIWAS is developed within the NOAH project. Working with water administrators from severalEuropean countries NOAH aims for a better provision of information during high water events and fora larger involvement of the citizens. FLIWAS is the tangible result of these efforts.

Dutch partners are STOWA (Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer – leading partner), threeWater Boards and the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat,i.e. RIZA – Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment). German partners areHochwasserschutzzentrale Köln and the county of Baden-Württemberg, represented by theRegierungspräsidium Karlsruhe. The latter acts on behalf of six local governments (Stadt undLandkreisen) along the River Rhine between Iffezheim and Mannheim.

NOAH is an Interreg IIIb-project, and partially financed by the European Union. FLIWAS isdeveloped in cooperation with two other relevant projects in the field of flood risks and calamitysuppression, i.e. HIS and VIKING.

HIS (acronym for High water Information System) is an automated computer system of theDirectorate-General for Public Works and Water Management. At imminent or existing high waterlevels HIS offers up-to-date information of threatened localities in retaining walls and dams. HIS alsocan generate a graphical overview of a potential breach and related safety issues for inhabitants of athreatened area. FLIWAS will incorporate the operational part of HIS. VIKING is a joint project of theDutch province of Gelderland and the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia aiming to improvetrans-boundary calamity management.

ArchitectureFLIWAS is a modular application accessible through the Internet. FLIWAS has a GIS-oriented user-interface, giving intuitive access to all functionality and information. User profiles ensure that all usersonly have access to the functionality that they need for their professional tasks and responsibilities.FLIWAS is multilingual, available in English, German and Dutch; it is simple and straightforward toadd new languages.

FLIWAS is developed as an open source (close community) application for governmentalorganisations within the European Union. Licenses for the use of FLIWAS are free, and it does notrequire any additional software licenses. Both DBMS Oracle and PostgreSQL can be used inFLIWAS. Communication with external applications and sources of information is performed throughXML/RPC or web services.

Developing environment: ZOPE and Python.

ServerOperating system: Linux and Microsoft Windows.Database Management System: PostgreSQL or Oracle.Map format: ESRI-shapes, bitmaps, TIFF and JPG.

WorkstationsOperating system: Linux, Microsoft Windows and Mac OS.Web browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer (version 6 and higher), Netscape (version 7 and higher),Mozilla Firefox (version 1.0 and higher).

PDA’s and Palmtops



Operating system: Microsoft Windows CE or Symbyan.Web browser: Opera Mobile (version 8 and higher).

FunctionalityFLIWAS supports decision-makers, water managers and other people concerned to take the rightdecisions at imminent high water levels. This is done using the following modules:

Water levels and other externally acquired data and forecasts are entered into FLIWASautomatically or by hand. Data is visualised by means of time-related diagrams, longitudinalsections and crosssections. The system will issue a warning as soon as the water level exceeds apredefined threshold value.The user defines emergency response plans and links all interventions to the organisationresponsible and/or related to a flood defence asset, e.g. an embankment section, a sluice or apumping station. In addition the user is able to assign each intervention to a phase. In a phasedapproach the emergency level is upgraded in discrete steps, or phases. The decision to upgradewill automatically initiate all interventions assigned to that phase. The emergency level of eachrelevant asset is shown in a map using different colours.In operational mode FLIWAS uses the selected emergency response plan and availableinformation to recommend required measures or phase shifts. Based on the decision of theoperational manager FLIWAS will inform the responsible staff instantaneously by means of fax,e-mail or SMS messages. Progress is monitored from the coordination centre.FLIWAS supports the evacuation decision making process. Evacuation plans for various floodingscenarios and evacuation strategies can be developed with the Evacuation Calculator (EC). TheEC is part of the FLIWAS-DSS.The Resource Management module in FLIWAS is instrumental to support the operational use ofemergency response plans. This module, together with up-todate duty rosters and stock lists,allows appropriate planning of human resources, tools and materials.The system automatically logs everything that the system and its users do: interventions andactions by the user, recommendations made by the system, manual and automatic import of datainto the system. This makes it possible to ‘replay’ the emergency situation after the flood event.Hence, it is possible to evaluate and cross-reference the decision making process to theinformation that was available at the time the decision was made. The evaluation module inFLIWAS is an important tool in identifying required improvements to emergency response plans,as well as improving the organisation and the knowledge level of the users.To assess emergency response plans in FLIWAS and to train future users of the system, FLIWASincludes particular testing and training modules. When these modules are activated externalcommunication is blocked and historical data (time series) are used instead.

Data requirements

Data requirements depend on the modules the user wants to apply, but can include:Water level and discharge information (hydraulic loadings)Emergency response plansInformation on potentially flooded areas (probable water depths and flow velocities)Information on the road network and the number of people to be evacuatedOverview of available human resources ,tools and materials to be used for evacuation and rescue

Water levels and other externally acquired data and forecasts are entered into FLIWAS automaticallyor by hand. Data is visualised by means of time-related diagrams, longitudinal sections and cross-sections. The system will issue a warning as soon as the water level exceeds a predefined thresholdvalue.



Application of decision support system

Emergency Response Plans

The FLIWAS user defines emergency response plans and links all interventions to the organisationresponsible and/or related to a flood defence asset, e.g. an embankment section, a sluice or a pumpingstation. In addition the user is able to assign each intervention to a phase. In a phased approach theemergency level is upgraded in discrete steps, or phases. The decision to upgrade will automaticallyinitiate all interventions assigned to that phase. The emergency level of each relevant asset is shown inthe map using different colours.

In operational mode FLIWAS uses the selected emergency response plan and available information torecommend required measures or phase shifts. Based on the decision of the operational managerFLIWAS will inform the responsible staff instantaneously by means of fax, e-mail or SMS messages.Progress and effective implementation is monitored from the coordination centre.

Evacuation

FLIWAS supports the evacuation decision making process. Evacuation plans for various floodingscenarios and evacuation strategies can be developed. A viewer displays the process of flooding in astep-wise and graphical manner on a base map. This way, the onset of flooding and the related waterlevels are clearly visualised. Based on the flooding scenario a traffic model calculates the amount oftime required for evacuation.

Resource Management

The Resource Management module in FLIWAS is instrumental to support the operational use ofemergency response plans. This module, together with up-to-date duty rosters and stock lists, allowsappropriate planning of human resources, tools and materials.

Evaluation

The system automatically logs everything that the system and its users do: interventions and actions bythe user, recommendations made by the system, manual and automatic import of data into the system.This makes it possible to ‘replay’ the emergency situation after the flood event. Hence, it is possible toevaluate and cross-reference the decision making process to the information that was available at thetime the decision was made. The evaluation module in FLIWAS is an important tool in identifyingrequired improvements to emergency response plans, as well as improving the organisation and theknowledge level of the users.

Testing and Training

To assess emergency response plans in FLIWAS and to train future users of the system, FLIWASincludes particular testing and training modules. When these modules are activated externalcommunication is blocked and historical data (time series) are used instead.

Current end usersThe Dutch partners involved in the FLIWAS project are STOWA (Stichting Toegepast OnderzoekWaterbeheer – leading partner), three Water Boards and the Directorate-General for Public Works andWater Management (Rijkswaterstaat, i.e. RIZA – Institute for Inland Water Management and WasteWater Treatment). German partners are Hochwasserschutzzentrale Köln and the county of Baden-Württemberg, represented by the Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe. The latter acts on behalf of six localgovernments (Stadtund Landkreisen) along the River Rhine between Iffezheim and Mannheim. Thesystem is being developed for part of the Province of Gelderland in the Netherlands, but FLIWAS isactively searching for other users in the Netherlands as well as in other countries.



Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThere have been some test sessions with potential users of Fliwas. No flood events have occurred sofar for which the Fliwas DSS could be used.

3.3.6 Calamity Information System Regge & Dinkel (CIS-Regge)

DescriptionIn 2006 the water board Regge & Dinkel commissioned Neelen & Schuurmans and WL | DelftHydraulics to develop a so-called "Calamity Information System" (CIS) that contains information ondifferent types of emergencies and on instructions for actions that need to be taken.

ArchitectureThe CIS is a fully web-based application. Basically it is a mapserver on the internet. It runs under webbrowsers as Internet Explorer and Firefox. The application at the Regge & Dinkel water board runs ona webserver via Apache Tomcat. The CIS is programmed in the common Html-language (so not inPhp, .Net, Java or similar). In view of cost only freeware is used. As mapserver the freewareGeoserver is applied. Geoserver communicates with the CIS application via the GML-standard foropen GIS. Geoserver can easily be replaced by another mapserver that supports the GML-standard. Onthe html-pages the map is built with the freeware programme MapBuilder.

FunctionalityThe centre of the system is the command screen from which links to different information sources andmodels can be activated. Figure 3.15 shows an example screen of the Regge & Dinkel application.

Figure 3.15 Example screen of the Regge & Dinkel application.



Scenario•drought•flooding•effluent•……

Consequence•risk•economy•ecology•……

Map of objects at risk•locations on roads•buildings•power supply•……

Information selected object•coordinates•id/name•hyperlink to information file•risk level for each consequence•……

Map options: zoom in & out, etc

legend: low, average, high damage or risk

All actual and relevant information is shown on a map via GIS shape-files and the related dbf-files.Several map layers can be shown with information on scenarios (inundation, power failure, drought,etc.). A vulnerable object can have a link in the dbf-file to a protocol or script, which is described in apdf-file and can be opened by clicking the corresponding hyperlink.

Figure 3.16 explains the function of the different parts of the screen. The upper left part of the screenshows a small map of the entire area. Below this map is a block with calamity scenarios that can beselected. Possible emergencies are related to drought, flooding, effluents, etc. Below this block, theuser can select the type of consequence they need information on. This information will be displayedin the larger map on the right. In this case the background map and the map of economical damagehave been selected. Assuming that the drought scenario was selected, the map on the right shows allobjects that may suffer economical damage. Zoom into the map can be done by clicking the symbolsabove it. If you want information on one or more of the objects shown on the map, you can doubleclick it and view the available information in a pop-up window at the bottom of the screen. In this casethe user obtains information on the coordinates, ID and name of the object, a hyperlink to a separatefile with information, and information on the risk level for each of the consequences that can beselected.

Figure 3.16 Functions of the different parts of the central screen.

A version of the system adapted for flood event management (in one of the pilot sites of Task 19: TheScheldt estuary) might look as shown in Figure 3.17.

The scenarios that can be selected will probably be based on a combination of water levels in theestuary and breach locations. The consequences that can be selected can be all output that is generatedby the flooding model and/or a damage model. The most important information on consequencesprobably exists of water depth, flood extent, flow velocity, rate of rise, time of inundation (hours afterfailure of dike). When the user selects "water depth" the map with water depths will be shown. In



Scenario•different river discharges, or•water levels in estuaries/along coast, or•combination of breach location and water level•……

Consequence (select 1consequence and themap will be shown)•water depth•flood extent•flow velocity•rate of rise•time of inundation•……

Map of objects at riskobjects at risk given that water level and breach location

• buildings• power supply• ……

Information selected object•coordinates•id/name•hyperlink to information file (for instancecontaining evac. instructions)•hyperlink to avi film of flooding simulation•general information about consequences•……

addition to this map there may be a map with objects at risk (e.g. buildings that are likely to collapse,hospitals) and safe places that can be used to evacuate people to. When clicking on one of the objects,the user will obtain information for this object (name/id, information on consequences such as max.water depth, time of inundation, and rate of rise). This screen will also contain a hyperlink to the avi-film that shows a film of the flooding simulations, and to a file that contains evacuation instructions. Itwould be good to also make a link to the evacuation model, so that additional runs can be done when aroad gets blocked due to a traffic accident or inundation.

Figure 3.17 Suggestion of how the CIS could be used as the DSS for the Scheldt

Data requirementsInformation on scenarios for inundation, power failure, drought, etc. Databases with information onvulnerable objects.

Application of decision support systemIt is used for emergency management in the Regge & Dinkel water board area.

Current end usersThe system is currently used by the Regge & Dinkel water board.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedIt is not designed for flood event management. However, adaptation to this purpose could be possible.



3.4 France3.4.1 ALHTAÏR (Alarme Hydrologique Territoriale Automatisée par Indicateur de

Risque

DescriptionALHTAIR is a flood forecasting tool developed over six years by the flood forecasting service of theGard region: Services de Prévision des Crues du Gard (SAC-30) (Bressand, 2001; Desprats et al.,2001; Ayral et al., 2003-2004). This region of south-east of France is particularly exposed to stormyrainfalls and flash floods. An extreme rainfall event on 8-9 September 2002 produced a maximumcumulated rainfall of 687 mm/day measured at a rain gauge. ALHTAIR, is still being improved andtested. The tool contains a distributed hydrological model that is able to simulate flood hydrographs atvarious locations of the river network using ground observations of rainfall intensities and water levelsin the rivers with estimates of efficient rainfall through meteorological radar. The system uses a GIS todisplay the spatial data and the forecasts.

ArchitectureThe ALHTAIR system is composed of three tools, which are integrated in the ArcGIS environment:

CALAMAR® : developed by RHEA, is software used for radar data processing that integrateshigh resolution radar data with rainfall measurements collected from rain gauge networks toproduce rainfall maps. The update frequency, which depends on the availability of the radar data,can be done every five minutes and results in the estimate of a rainfall amount on each spatialsurface unit (pixel of 1 km2) of the studied zone.HYDROKIT®: developed by STRATEGIS, allows the watersheds and the sub-watersheds to beextracted from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). It supplies information on the basin structure(e.g. slope, hydrographic drainage system geometry properties) that can be used as input torainfall-runoff models.ALHTAÏR : is a rainfall-runoff model. Its parameters are either calibrated if rainfall and dischargemeasurements are available for the considered catchment, or determined on the basis of the soiltypes (soil type maps are available from the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique-INRA), the land cover (analysis of SPOT satellite images), the bedrock type (geological mapsfrom the Bureau de la Recherche Géologique et Minière-BRGM). Four types of areas have beendetermined from the intersection of these three maps on a GIS. The average infiltration parametersfor each type of area have been determined on the basis of the model calibration results as well ason the results of field measurements.

Figure 3.18 Diagram of the ALHTAIR flood forecasting system functional architecture



FunctionalityCALAMAR® provides calibrated (using automatic ground rain gauges network) radar precipitationsfor all hydrological units of the basin.

HYDROKIT® exploits the DTM of the BD ALTI® data base of l’Institut Géographique National(IGN). It allows to :

Extract the physical characteristics of a catchment.Determine the concentration time.Establish longitudinal profiles of a river network.Analyse the time of overland flow transfer of a basin and define isochrones.

ALHTAÏR rainfall-runoff model has the following functionality :Determination of the efficient rainfall contributing to the overland flow taking into account spatialvariability of the catchment and its characteristics including infiltration rate (production function).Transfer of the overland flow through the drainage system.

Data requirementsALHTAÏR uses the following data:

Digital topographic maps (extracted from IGN’s BD ALTI® - vector, scale 1:50000, resolution50m in horizontal and 2m in vertical direction).Land cover maps extracted from European Environmental Agency (EEA) CORINE Land Cover(vector, scale 1:100000) and National Forest Inventory (l’Inventaire Forestier National – scale1:25000) and three images of SPOT satellite dated May and August 2001 and January 2002).Digital geological maps (raster, 1:50000 and 1:80000 from French Geological Survey - BRGM).Land use map extracted from BDSol-LR® (vector, 1/250000) provided by Institut National deRecherche Agronomique – INRA).Flood prone area maps extracted from IGN’s Scan100® and Scan25® maps.Real-time observations of rainfall and water level in rivers from measurement network of a givencatchment.Real-time spatial estimates of the rainfall intensity as seen from the meteorological radar.In the case of flood event additional inundation maps can be provided by Earth Observationsatellite operators to the crisis management centre 24 hours after initialisation of the InternationalCharter of Space and Major Disasters(23).

Application of decision support systemALHTAÏR is used as real time flood forecasting support.

Current end usersThe system in operational use by Service de Prévision des Crues Grand Delta (Flood ForecastingServive of Great Delta) based at Direction Departementale d’Equipement of Gard – DDE-30 (GardCounty Directorate of Infrastructure) at Nîmes.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedIt has been used operationally since 2002 and during recent major flash floods that occurred 6 to 9September.

3.4.2 ALPHEE: Economical Assessment of flood damages in the Ile -de-FranceRegion

DescriptionThe ALPHEE model (Hydratec et al., 1998) has been developed between 1992 and 1998 for theInstitution des Grands Lacs de Seine (IIBRBS, the public administration of Seine, Aube and Marne



river reservoirs situated upstream of Paris Region) to estimate the flood damage costs in the Ile-de-France region and to test the efficiency (cost-benefit analysis) of the existing and considered floodmitigation devices (reservoirs, polders in floodplains, etc.).

ArchitectureThe ALPHEE model is composed of three parts:

Hydrological model: 120 years of hydrological data (rainfall and discharges) have been processed.The hydrographs of the tributaries have been computed for 15 previous floods to build 15hydrological scenarios for the hydraulic model. Finally, the return periods of the floodscorresponding to each these scenarios for all the available river gauging stations have beenestimated. A large range of return periods is covered so that a mean annual expected flood damagecan be estimated for the various parts of the river system on the basis of the flood damagescomputed for the 15 individual floods.Hydraulic model: A quasi-two dimensional hydraulic model has been calibrated and validated onthe sample of 15 selected floods. The outputs of the model are the evolution in time of the floodedareas and the water depths and velocities for the various tested hydrological scenarios and testedflood alleviation measures.Economic model: Two main types of damages are evaluated for each tested scenario, the damagesdirectly linked to the surface of the flooded area (direct and indirect damages to houses, industriesand other economical activities) and the damages to the networks (railways, gas, phone, electricityand road traffic). The estimation of the surface linked damages results from the intersection of theflooded area and of land use data (census on households, business and activities of the InstitutNationalde la Statistique et des Etudes Economique INSEE, or the land use database of the Institutd’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme de la Région Ile de France, IAURIF for Paris and thesurrounding counties). Given the density and type of houses and activities, the total damage cost isthen estimated using a unit cost for houses or depth-damage curves established on the basis ofsurveys (industries, economical activities). Concerning the networks, the estimated costs for thevarious tested flood scenarios result from specific surveys. Finally, a traffic simulation model ofthe Ile de France region (IAURIF model) has been used to evaluate the induced traffic congestionand increase of travel times.

These three tools are integrated in the Map Info GIS environment. Developed under DELPHI thespecific data bases are directly structured and managed by BDE engine of DELPHI. This allows alsoto provide a unique Graphical User Interface (GUI) with appropriate tools necessary for production ofall maps and tabular output.

FunctionalityALPHEE offers the end-users the following functionality:

To define hydrological response of the catchment, possibly influenced by the reservoir lakes;To select and simulate the impact of a certain number of hydraulic constructions in the minor bedand flood plains in the Seine, Marne and Oise rivers;To estimate the direct and indirect damage related to a given flooding (real or hypothetical);To analyse the results and impacts at the scales appropriate to the problems.

Data requirementsALPHEE manipulates a wide range of geo-referenced objects such as:

Points : electricity substations, water production plants, sewage farms, …Areas : classes of land use, French Statistical Office INSEE blocks, catchment surface unitscorresponding to flood plains,Lines : transportation networks (roads, railways, etc.)Spatial information in RASTER format : Images, aerial photographs, IGN SCAN25 maps.



These data are collected from all available sources (INSEE, IGN, …).

Application of decision support systemThe system is in operational use for two purposes:

To estimate real flood damages (direct and indirect).To simulate a potential impact of a hydraulic structure (both in the river minor bed or flood plain)on damage reduction.

Current end usersDirection Régional de l’Environnement Ile-de-France (Ile-de-France Regional Directorate for theEnvironment – DIREN/IDF), Direction Régionale de l’Equipement (Ile-de-France RegionalDirectorate for Infrastructure – DRE/IDF).

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThe system was applied for the events (scenarios) defining the level of legal protection relevant to agiven type of hydraulic structure (ranging from 1 in 10 year return period flood for local infra-structures up to a 1 in 1000 year return flood for barrages).

3.4.3 PACTES (Prévention Anticipation des Crues au moyen des TEchniquesSpatiales)

DescriptionPACTES (Prévention et Anticipation des Crues au moyen des Techniques Spatiales) project, is aFrench transverse initiative focussed on flash floods in the French Mediterranean area which wasinitiated in 2000 by the French Space Agency (CNES) and the French Ministry of Research, in orderto improve the operational management of floods, by a joint approach of operational users, scientificlaboratories and industries. It covers all phases of flood management: prevention, forecasting and alert,crisis management and post-crisis assessment phases (Goutorbe et al., 2000; Reuche, 2001). ThePACTES members have decided to work with an original approach taking, as far as possible, benefitof space techniques (Remote Sensing, telecommunication, positioning). The main idea was to createan overall processing chain, starting from the data provided by ground or space instruments, up to thefinal decision support tools and information management. Every part of the process integratessimulation models provided by research laboratories: meteorology, hydrology, hydraulics, ground andsatellite telecommunication, satellite navigation.

Started in December 2000, the approach taken in PACTES is to work closely with users such as civilsecurity and civil protection organisms, fire brigades and city councils for requirements gathering andduring the validation phase. It has led to the development and experimentation of an integrated pre-operational demonstrator, delivered to different types of operational users. Experimentation has takenplace in three watersheds representative of different types of floods (flash and plain floods). The mainscientific inputs to flood risk management are summarised. Validation studies for the three watershedscovered by PACTES (Moselle, Hérault and Thoré) are detailed.

ArchitectureThe PACTES tool currently includes a distributed rainfall-runoff model (MARINE developed by theInstitut de Mécanique des Fluides de Toulouse) and a one dimensional hydraulic model (MAGE,developed by the CEMAGREF). On the basis of the measured and forecast rainfall intensities, usingRADAR data, it can compute in real time flood hydrographs and the corresponding flooded area in themain river streams. An interface developed on a GIS produces two types of flood maps: (1) a mapindicating the risk level (return period) of the forecast floods for each river reach and each forecastinghorizon and (2) and maps of the potentially flooded areas superimposed on the land use maps for theidentification of the threatened stakes and networks.



Like multi-actors information system, its architecture has been conceived assigning dedicated decisionsupport tools for each category of actor and allowing the GIS integration and the sharing ofinformation between the actors through the server technology.

Web Server :

Interactive accessInformation sharing

USERS

Land use maps

HR EO images

Cartography data

EO data(archives, acquisitions)

Context data (meteo,..)

Vulnerability dataProduction andManagement

ScenarioImpact analysis &Report generation

Flood extentextraction

GIS + database-maps, EO products

-Thematic layers (vulnerability)-Historical and reference

flood scenarios-impact analyses & reports

PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT USERSREFERENCE

INFORMATIONSERVER

ScenarioSimulation

Meteo & hydro dataDEMLand cover

Figure 3.19 Diagram of the PACTES functional architecture

FunctionalityAs a flood management system, PACTES simulates flood scenarios through meteorological,hydrological and hydraulic simulation models. This simulation chain has the peculiarity that can berun in two different modes using different simulation models. The first one (off line mode) generatesrisk maps assessing the flood scenarios and their impacts. The second one (on-line mode) generatesreal time forecasting based on rainfall observations. During the forecasting phase the system, throughthe above mentioned simulation models, generates flood extents (compared with historical floodextent maps) it will continue to run also during the flood emergency together with the activitiesrequired by the emergency management organisations e.g. reporting, bulletins preparation, eventmonitoring, on-site intervention management, etc.

Data requirementsIn PACTES approach, space technology is used in three main ways: (1) radar and optical earthobservation data are used to produce Digital Elevation Maps, (2) land use - earth observation data arealso an input to weather forecasting, together with ground sensors; (3) satellite-based tele-communication and mobile positioning.

Application of decision support systemIn the context of current organisation of the European Civil Protection Agency activities, in which therisk management chain addresses four main operational phases: Prevention, Forecasting (EarlyWarning), Crisis and Post-Crisis, PACTES is the only risk management system covering all the fouremergency phases.

The objectives of the PACTES research program were very ambitious. The existing tool is in pre-operational phase and still under development. Two limitations appeared during the research



programme. Firstly, the flooded area should rather be computed a priori for a limited range of floodsthan in real time. It is time consuming, and due to the uncertainties on the forecast discharges, it doesnot contribute to improve the results significantly. Secondly, the tool has to cope with the very highuncertainties on the forecast discharges due to uncertainties on the estimated and forecast rainfallamounts and to the poor performances of the rainfall-runoff models especially in the case of flashfloods. The main issue seems not to be in the refinement of the input data and the models, which wasthe first objective of the PACTES project, but in the way the highly uncertain forecast can used by thestakeholders.

Current end usersThe PACTES is a French transverse initiative, which involves end users (civil protections, services ofthe Ministry of Environment) at national, regional and local scale, research laboratories, remotesensing data and service providers and industrial companies.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedPACTES pre-operational demonstrator has been installed on three different sites to evaluate thecompliance of the demonstrator with users needs and to validate the demonstrator functions.Three sites in France have been equipped with the PACTES pre-operational demonstrator:

River Moselle, in the north-east of France, representative of a flood plain that inundates slowly.The water height reached by the flood is some ten centimetres. It increases slowly, can last somedays and decrease slowly. Damages caused by the flood are more material than human.On river Hérault and river Thoré, in the south of France, the type of flood addressed is a "flashflood". The increase and decrease of the flood is very quick and directly linked to heavy rainfalls.Material damages and human loss can be very important.

3.4.4 OSIRIS-inondation

DescriptionOSIRIS (Operational Solutions for the management of Inundation Risks in the Information Society)was originally a 5th EU FP project under the IST (Information Society Technology) programme(Erlich, 2006). Its goal consisted in improvement of the dissemination, using Information andCommunication Technologies (ITC), of information on flood risk to citizens for better prevention orcrisis management. In the framework of OSIRIS activity a prototype of a tool called “OSIRIS-Inondation” (Morel et al., 2002; Morel, 2004a; Morel, 2004b) has been developed to provideoperational solutions to local managers on the Loire River basin. The main objective is to provide aninterface which can help the local stakeholders to make use of the official forecasts and to link them toother documents: flood prevention plans, rescue organisation plans. The prototype was specified,tested and validated by the different groups of stakeholders represented by an active OSIRIS partnerand committed end-user Etablissement Public Loire (EPLoire).

The Centre d’Etudes Technique Maritime et Fluvial (CETMEF), a service of the FrenchMinistry of Infrastructure, is now in charge of the further development of OSIRIS-Inundationand of its distribution. Detailed information is available at the following address:http://www.ist-osiris.org/indexOsiris.html.

ArchitectureOSIRIS-Inundation compiles and makes available the pertinent information for crisis management:flood forecasting reports, flood map scenarios, localisation of the main stakes and rescue plans orsynthetic flood intervention procedure sheets.

Once the pertinent data and knowledge have been correctly acquired and structured, they can beentered in the model. This tool is built around two modules. The first one proposes services in the

http://www.ist-osiris.org/indexOsiris.html.



form of human-machine interface to enable the local stakeholders to compile their own local databaseautonomously. The second module makes it possible to transform and to extract added value from theofficial flood forecasts thanks to models (hydrological, hydraulic). It describes into a plan of actionwhich sectors and stakes might be flooded, what action should be implemented to limit the impact andwithin what time scale, and finally what resources should be mobilised to perform the action.

All these predefined possible scenarios are created during the preparation phase, thanks to the databaseanalysis. For each community, some specific plan and map are built which will be activated in themanagement phase by a number of “triggers” whose status depends on data updated in real time (e. g.a water level which exceeds a certain limit at a given point or in a given sector, or the collapse of adyke). Flooded areas are not calculated in real time, they are predefined maps and plan that will beused depending on the warning level.

Figure 3.20 OSIRIS-inondation : (a) Inundation scenario and (b) intervention instruction sheet

The core of the OSIRIS-inondation architecture is a client-server model. The technological choices forits development were in phase with the expectation of EPLoire, the public body representing localself-governments all along Loire river basin willing a wide and royalty-free dissemination of the toolamong municipalities. As far as the geographical information is concerned the simplified cartographictool was developed by means of vector graphical standard for the Internet (Scalable Vector Graphic -SGV).

Widely available software tools were used for the system development:

On the client side :HTML gives the framework technology for WEB browser compatible man-machine interface;SVG completes HTML for graphical and cartographical components;JAVASCRIPT permits to manipulate HTML and SVG components, and to encapsulate PHPrequests that are sent to the server.

On the server side:PHP permits to receive request from the client, to request data from databases (also on the server),to process those data and finally to send answers to the client in the form of HTML or SVG files;



MySQL is the database support tool that implements relational data models and contains allbusiness permanent data of the project.APACHE is a WEB server free support tool that includes modules for PHP and MySQL.XML is used as standard exchange and import format, especially for hydrological data andcartographical data.

FunctionalityOSIRIS-Inondation is the tool, which can be used in local or remote access modes with two mainfunctions : crisis planning preparation and crisis management. Developed as a web oriented service ituses Internet Explorer as a basic access environment. The user-friendly interface allows the followingtasks to be performed:

Simulations: It does not perform complex calculations (it is not aimed at engineers): it integratestechnical data and makes them understandable to no-technical end-users in terms of :

Forecasts: interface with/access to official forecasts, editing, validation, exploitation.Hydrology – mapping of flooded areas integrated into the scenarios.

Scenarios: local situation or a series of predefined situations triggered by the forecast flood state(for example: a forecast local water level of 3.50 m will trigger a "1 in 100 year return flood"scenario, with resulting flood states, actions and resources)Interfaces: ability to interface OSIRIS-Inundation with other tools:

Automatic warningsLocal databases (directories)Operational crisis management

Data requirementsThe database contains information common to all stakeholders located on the same territory:

general information about the territorycartographical references : maps and potential flooded sectors corresponding to flood plains,reference scalesinundation scenarios.

The "stakeholder" information database contains information related to:stakeholder categoriesvulnerability associated to each stakeholderlist of appropriate actionshuman and material means

Application of decision support systemOperational services (version 1.2) include two types of application:

a framework for crisis preparation and local flood protection plans.a tool for crisis planning (a coherent basis for crisis management).

OSIRIS-inondation is a tool which is open to extensions, such as:communication and resource optimization between different levels of decision-making (notablylocal and county levels).real-time operations and resource management and learning from crisis management events (userfeedback).

Current end usersThe OSIRIS-Inondation system has been successfully tested in 2003 to 2004 in several river basinsand communities in France, with a strong commitment from the local and regional stakeholders.



The Loire river basin:Two localities (Saint-Pryvé and Cléry-Saint-André) involved in testing and validation of thetool;Involvement of key local stakeholders (institutional and civil society);Concept validation, integration of user requests into the latest version of the tool.More widespread deployment in 2005, supported by the “Etablissement Public Loire” (LoireRiver Public Authority), in partnership with the CETMEF.

The Finistere county:Partnership with the county’s emergency services and local stakeholders (localities, the StatePrefect, companies, utility network managers, etc.).Testing on several of the county’s rivers/localities (Quimper, Châteaulin …)

The Meuse river basin:A bottom-up “end-user requirements analysis” approach, with a view to adaptationIntegration of the local and county levels (emergency/civil protection services).Testing completed in 2005 in the three counties concerned.

Flood events in which the decision support system has been usedThe system has been used in historical and recent (e.g. January 2005) floods.

3.4.5 Decision Support Systems for other natural hazards

One system concerns avalanches, the other forest fires.



4. Conclusions and recommendations

Existing decision support systems in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France.

Chapter 3 of this report describes existing decision support systems developed in:The United Kingdom:

Environment Agency Management System (AMS) OnlineModelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF)SurreyAlert

The Netherlands:Planning Kit DSSIrma-Sponge DSS Large RiversIVB-DOSESCAPE Decision Support System (European Solutions by Cooperation And Planning inEmergencies)FLIWAS (Flood Information and Warning System)Calamity Information System Regge & Dinkel (CIS-Regge)

France:ALarme Hydrologique Territoriale Automatisée par Indicateur de Risque (ALHTAÏR)ALPHEE: Economical Assessment of flood damages in the Ile-de-France RegionPrévention Anticipation des Crues au moyen des TEchniques Spatiales (PACTES)OSIRIS-inondation

Remarks on the UK decision support systems

With the UK the main DSS used in flood risk management is the Modelling and Decision SupportFramework (MDSF). In the context of flood event management this is used for long term planningpurposes. The MDSF is widely used in England and Wales for developing long-term flood riskmanagement plans and strategies. Although not developed for flood event management manyencompassed by the MDSF are relevant to flood event management (e.g. the assessment of floodwaterdepth and risk in terms of economic damage and number of people affected).

Environment Agency Management System (AMS) Online forms the basis of a decision supportframework for flood event management within the Environment Agency. It contains a structured set ofprocess diagrams and documents on flood incident management. However, it’s main purpose is to actas a repository for processes and procedures that are related to flood event management.

Remarks on the Dutch decision support systems

The Dutch DSSs described in this report have been commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Transportand Public Works to help support decision making on a specific aspect of flood risk management thatwas considered urgent at the time. Development of each tool has taken two or more years input byteams consisting of water management experts, software developers, and clients/users.

Each of the described tools has cost hundreds of thousands of Euros. However, only one of the tools isactually used in practice: the Planning Toolkit (and the derived web-based Water Manager). ThePlanning Kit is the most recent DSS and was developed taking into account lessons from the otherprojects. This tool was simple in its design, transparent in its functioning and limited in scope andambition. However, this does not mean that it required less effort to develop. Its user-friendlinessincreased the amount of work needed.



A comparison of the Planning kit DSS and the Irma-Sponge DSS Large Rivers (both developed forlong-term flood risk management) shows that even in DSSs where the run time of model is not acritical issue, end users often prefer a DSS based on "pre-cooked" model results, instead of having torun the models as part of the DSS. The main reasons for not wanting the models to be part of the DSSis that those type of DSSs can only by applied by a group of experts with a different back ground (i.e.a combination of modellers and decision makers). Similar reasons were found during the review ofother DSSs for long-term flood risk management that were developed in the Netherlands. For instance,one of the reasons the end users stopped using the DSS IVB-DOS was that the system was toocomplex and contained too many instruments and functions. The users indicated that at present, theyprefer to work with the individual models and not with the DSS combining the models.

The DSSs used specifically for flood event management in the Netherlands (ESCAPE and FLIWAS)are mainly based on “pre-cooked” model results and documents with instructions on how to handle.The only model that can be run during the event is the evacuation model. All other models (e.g. breachgrowth, inundation, damage and casualties models) are run before the flood event (scenarios) and theresults are stored in the DSS. The main reason for the use of pre-cooked model results is related to therun-time of the models that exceeds the available time for decision making. Robustness may also playan important role, as the application of pre-cooked model results minimises the risk of the modelcrashing at a crucial point that would mean that the decision makers must take decisions withouthaving any information at all.

Remarks on the French decision support systems

The number of existing management tools in France is limited. Only three of them, all focussed onflood management, have been developed for a real time use: ALHTAIR, PACTES and OSIRIS-inondation. ALHTAIR is mainly a flood forecasting system and it does not include a vulnerability andrisk assessment part. PACTES is very ambitious program still in pre-operational stage for themoment. OSIRIS-inondation appears to be the only risk assessment and crisis management tool at alocal level which is operational and widely disseminated to local administration (commune,municipality) for planning.

It is worth noting that the evaluation and the communication on the risk is based on predefinedscenarios and maps: no new flooded area computations and queries to identify the threatened stakes orto compute management scenarios (evacuation or rescue organisation for instance) are undertaken inreal time.

Use of GIS as an interface is now wide spread in natural hazard assessment and management. Thiskind of tool allows a good synthesis of various information and an easy communication between thedifferent stakeholders.

Road networks have seldom been taken into account, despite their great importance during a crisis(mean of communication). Although some tools or road crisis management plans are underdevelopment in floodplains (i.e. mainly in the Loire river valley in France) nothing seems to exist or tobe planned for flash floods whereas a management of the traffic appears to be a major concern in thislast case. This clearly justifies the attempt to develop traffic management tools during crisis within thetask 17 of the Floodsite project.

Differences and resemblances of the UK, Dutch and French DSS

The decision support systems described in this report are rather different, as not all of them weredeveloped for the purpose of flood event management. Some systems were made for flood preventionplanning. The systems are only briefly described in this report, but not tested, so differences andresemblances cannot be presented in a systematic way in a sort of test table with scores.



Nevertheless there are a number of resemblances. All the described systems are more or less"generic". They may have been set up and applied for a specific area only, but their modular set-upwould with some effort allow application for other areas as well. Also some form of GIS is present inmost systems. For some systems only in the form of a simple map, just for orientation purposes, butusually there are different layers to show spatial information on various subjects.

In DSSs where results of model calculations have to be taken into account in the decision making,those results are usually not calculated real-time. In most models a selection is made from pre-calculated sets of model output. Exceptions are FLIWAS, where in the evacuation module anadaptation of the traffic model results to the actual situation during an evacuation will be possible, andPACTES, where efforts are made to produce real-time run-off predictions on the basis of (forecasted)rainfall.

Some systems are basically a DSS, with the decision part for the emergency managers, but theycontain also a public part (web-based) for providing up-to-date information to the public during anemergency via internet. Surrey Alert, the Planning Kit and Fliwas are examples of such systems.

Requirements for the Task 19 Scheldt pilot

The successful application of a DSS will substantially benefit from an intensive interaction during itsdevelopment with its future users. This helps to prevent the DSS to be a useful and widely accepteddecision making tool. In view of the conclusions above and pending further discussions, the authorstentatively propose that FLOODsite Task 19 may best follow the following approach:

Develop a Framework, as a basis for a detailed set of Guidelines for development of DSS forFlood Event Management in Europe, but not develop a generic operational software tool, as thiswould take more time than available, and would almost certainly not be used in practice.Apply the Framework to develop simple ‘test case’ DSS that focus on specific problems in thePilot Studies, largely utilising existing (modified) tools and models.

Review of the described DSSs leads to the conclusion that the flood event management DSS to bedeveloped in Task 19 for the Scheldt pilot site should:

Enable the storage of pre-cooked model results. The results of different types of models, such asflood inundation models and evacuation models must be stored in the DSS.Enable storage of other relevant data. These data may comprise items like location, number andvulnerability of people at risk, coordination of event response personnel, optimisation of saferoutes for rescue services where warning time is minimal.Have the possibility to run simple models. Although complex two dimensional flood inundationmodels will not be used as part of the DSS, it might be useful to incorporate the simpler and fastermodels on evacuation or application of flood event measures. The models that will be incorporatedin the DSS must be fast, robust and easy to use. Moreover, they should provide additionalinformation that is not of critical importance during the flood event. In other words: all modelresults that are of critical importance must be stored (pre-cooked) in the DSS to ensure that thedecision maker always has the required information at his disposal. The results of the modelsimplemented in the DSS may provide more detailed information, but should not form the soleinformation source.Run fast. The required information is produced in a short time (say minutes).Be robust. The system should not fail in a crisis situation! To be sure that the information includedin the DSS always is available, a paper copy of all maps, tables and other documents can be made.

Other criteria that may play an important role in the selection process for a suitable DSS are:User-friendliness. This applies both to the interface and to the presentation of results in maps andgraphs.



Spatial aspects. If the DSS is linked to a GIS, the results presented on maps are easier tounderstand for decision makers.Data requirements. What types of data are needed, how are they input to the DSS, and how easycan they be obtained in practice?Quantification of uncertainty. Each module has a certain uncertainty. The cumulative uncertaintyof all steps determines the confidence a decision maker will (or should) have in the outcome.Likeliness that the DSS will be used.

Requirements for the Task 19 Thames pilot

The requirements of the DSS for the Thames pilot study are very similar to those for the Scheldt pilot.In the UK several weakness with regards to emergency planning for floods have been identified.These broadly fall under four main headings:

(i) Weaknesses in current communications links(ii) Weaknesses in current Flood Emergency Plans(iii) Weaknesses in the current availability of procedures(iv) Weaknesses in decision-making

These weaknesses are briefly highlighted below.

(i) Weaknesses in current communications links

The weaknesses in communication include:

A lack of mapping of key communications;A lack of an index of roles, master list of resources and task allocations;Multi-agency resource planning is weak.

(ii) Weaknesses in current Flood Emergency Plans

In terms of Flood Emergency in the UK the following has been found:

30% of plans have not been published or communicated to people in the area;30% of plans have not been seen or validated by the Environment Agency;Police plans do not have flood evacuation routes identified and 20% do not include trafficmanagement measures in their evacuation plans at all;Evacuation routes are set out in < 20% of plans;Vulnerable groups (including caravan sites) are identified in less than 40% of plans;Utility installations and telecommunications details are provided in less than 20% of plans;Only a minority identify sheltering locations.

(iii) Weaknesses in current availability of procedures

With respect to the current procedures there is:

A lack of procedures describing how to deploy a response;Weak links between flood emergency plans and flood warning

(iv) Weaknesses in decision-making

There is a general weakness in decision making and in order to facilitate decision making underuncertainty, there are stakeholder requirements for quantitative evidence based on the following:

Hazard;



Probability;Consequence;History.

Overall there is a need for a systems-approach to disaster management and response.

Although the DSS will not be able to address all of the above issues it will go some way to addressingmany of them. For the Thames pilot catchment the DSS should be able to provide the following riskbased information:

Residential properties at risk and depths of flooding;Commercial property at risk and depths of flooding;Services/utilities at risk and depths of flooding;Process operational centres at risk and depths of flooding;Transport infrastructure at risk and depths of flooding.

In order to support the decision as to whether to evacuate an area the DSS also needs to provide thefollowing:

Can all residential properties that are at risk of flooding evacuate voluntarily if required? Forexample, is the road network safe? Is there a shelter readily available?If there are areas that could not safely evacuate, is there an alternative emergency plan in place tomanage risks appropriately?At what point should evacuation be recommended over and above moving to upper floors inproperty or near-by property?Are there utility stations at risk that would make remaining in the property dangerous or difficult?(e.g. electrical substations, sewage treatment plants).Are emergency plans in place to manage risks to such utility infrastructure?Are hospitals or other key services (e.g. police, fire, ambulance stations) at risk?Are emergency plans in place to manage risks to key service infrastructure?Are flood event management process centres at risk, if yes are alternative plans in place?For areas where an evacuation may be required:o Where are people most likely to require evacuation assistance (ie the most vulnerable and/or

those in locations where risks to people are highest)?o Are safe haven locations appropriate and available?o Are times to evacuate (if available) sufficient for likely flood characteristics?

What traffic management measures should be put in place to ensure minimum disruption to trafficflow and or minimum risks to life from evacuation process?



5. References

1. LOGTMEIER C, (2006), User requirements in flood evacuation management, FLOODsitereport (draft) July 2006.

2. VAN DER LINDEN M, (2001), Integrale Verkenning Benedenrivieren. AchtergrondrapportIVB-DOS. Reportnr AP/3314610/2000/16. Rijkswaterstaat Directie Zuid-Holland, Rotterdam,The Netherlands.

3. RIJKSWATERSTAAT DIENST WEG- EN WATERBOUWKUNDE, (2000-2006),Nieuwsbrief HIS (Hoogwater Informatie Systeem) (Newsletter HIS, Highwater InformationSystem), www.hisinfo.nl (in Dutch)

4. SURREY ALERT (2006) Surrey Alert web site [WWW]http://www.surreyalert.info/surreyalertpublic/main/publichome (2 January 2006)

5. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY/DEFRA (2006) Modelling and Decision Support System(MDSF) web page [WWW] http://www.mdsf.co.uk/ (2 January 2006)

6. AYRAL PA, DESPRATS JF, BRESSAND F, PINEL D, SAUVAGNARGUES-LESAGE S,KING C and DORFLIGER N (2003-2004), Intégration de la variabilité spatiale del'infiltration des sols dans un model de prévision des crues opérationnel : ALHTAIR - Zonetest de bassin versant du Gardon d'Anduze, Bulletin de la Société Française dePhotogrammétrie et de télédétection, Vol. 172, pp 1-9.

7. BERTENS J, BRUSCHI VM and WEICHSELGARTNER J (2000), Natural risk assessmentin environmental policy-making : a conceptual approach towards sustainable policy actions,Proceedings of the Second EuroConference on Global Change and Catastrophe RiskManagement : Earthquake Risks in Europe, Santander.

8. BRESSAND F (2001), Le projet ALHTAIR du service d'annonce des crues du Gard, Nimes,Direction Départementale de l’Equipement (DDE30), technical report, 8 pp.

9. DESPRATS J, PINEL D, AYRAL PA, BRESSAND F, KING C and DORFLIGER N (2001).Cartographie du potentiel d'infiltration des sols du Bassin Versant du Gardon d'Anduzecomme élément d'amélioration du modèle de prévision de crue du Gard. Bureau de RechercheGéologique et Minière (BRGM), Ecole des Mines d'Ales (EMA), Direction Dépatementale del'équipement, Nimes (DDE SAC-30), technical report, 7 pp.

10. DIRECTION REGIONALE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (DIREN) Midi-Pyrénées (2002),Guide méthodologique - Gestion de crise - volet inondation, Toulouse, Ministère del'Environnement, technical report, 64 pp.

11. ERLICH M. (2007), “OSIRIS - an example of citizen-oriented technology development in thearea of dissemination of information on flood risk management”, in S.Begum et al.,International Journal of Natural Hazards, Chapter 3 of Special issue : "Flooding in Europe:Risks and Challenges", Springer (in press), pp 43-60.

12. FIORUCCI P, GAETANI F, MINCIARDI R and TRASFORINI E (2005), Natural riskassessment and decision planning for disaster mitigation, Advances in geosciences, Vol. 2, pp161-165.

13. GARRY G (1994), Evolution et rôle de la cartographie dans la gestion des zones inondablesen France, Mappemonde, Vol. 4, pp 10-16.

14. GARRY G, GRASZK E, HUBERT T, GUYOT P and ROY JL (1999), Plan de prévention desrisques naturels : Risque d'inondation guide méthodologique, Ministère de l'environnement,La documentation Française, 124 pp.

http://www.hisinfo.nl

http://www.surreyalert.info/surreyalertpublic/main/publichome

http://www.mdsf.co.uk/



15. GOUTORBE JP, ALQUIER M, DARTUS D, DUCUING JL, ESTUPINA V, GREGORIS Yand VINCENT A ROBERT DE ST (2000), Using space observations for flood monitoring :the PACTES project, Toulouse, Météo France, Institut de mécanique des fluides de Toulouse(IMFT), astrium, technical report, 7 pp.

16. HUFSCHMIDT G, CROZIER M and GLADE T (2005), Evolution of natural risk : researchframework and perspectives, Natural hazards and earth system sciences, Vol. 5, pp 375-387.

17. HYDRATEC, SIEE and CONSEILS TERRITOIRE (1998), Rapport de synthèse - Evaluationdes dommages liés aux crues en région Ile-de-France, Les Grands Lacs de Seine, Technicalreport, 107 pp.

18. IRMA (2002), Prévenir et gérer les risques majeurs - guide d'élaboration du plan communald'action, Techni.Cités, technical report, 113 pp.

19. LAVAKARE A (1998), GIS and risk assessment, Risk Mangement Software Information(RMSI), Electronic source.

20. COMMUNE DE MARSEILLE (2003), Dossier d'information communal sur les RisquesMajeurs (DICRIM), Marseille, information paper, 32 pp.

21. MINISTERE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT, MINISTERE DE L'EQUIPEMENT (1997), Guidegénéral, Plans de prévention des risques naturels prévisibles (PPR), La documentationfrançaise, 78 pp.

22. MOREL G (2004a), The impact of ICT on changes in operational flood management, Centred'Etude Maritime et Fluviale (CETMEF), technical report, 6 pp.

23. MOREL G (2004b), OSIRIS-inondation : un outil issu de la recherche européenne pourplanifier la gestion de crise au niveau local, Geographic Information System and disastermanagement, Institut des Sciences et des Techniques de l’Equipement et l’Environnementpour le Développement (ISTED), pp 62-66.

24. MOREL G and TALIERCIO G (2002), Systèmes d'aide à la décision pour l'environnement :point de vue global aux solutions locales pour la gestion des inondations, Centre d'EtudesMaritimes et Fluviales (CETMEF), Guy Talercio Consultant, technical report, 9 pp.

25. REUCHE S (2001), La géomatique au service de la sécurité civile, Département degéographie, Université de Metz, DESS report, 67 pp.

26. SALOMON P (2004), Plan de gestion du trafic en cas de crue de la Loire et de ses affluents,Direction Regionale de l'Equipement (DRDE) Centre, technical report, 40 pp.

27. Charter On Cooperation To Achieve The Coordinated Use Of Space Facilities In The EventOf Natural Or Technological Disasters (http://www.disasterscharter.org/charter_e.html)

http://www.disasterscharter.org/charter_e.html