![[Title] [Instructor]...10. Assessing flood risks (2) (Ichikawa) 11. Relationship between flood disaster and landuse (Ichikawa) 12. Assessing costs and benefits of river basin management](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5fc2fc4414bc76677c56d4ee/title-instructor-10-assessing-flood-risks-2-ichikawa-11-relationship.jpg)
The Assessing the effectiveness of flood protection ... · flood measures Evaluation • Numerical...
13
The Assessing the effectiveness of flood protection measures & the proportion of different types of measures on the overall flood protection Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise
Transcript of The Assessing the effectiveness of flood protection ... · flood measures Evaluation • Numerical...
The Assessing
the effectiveness of flood protection measures
&
the proportion of different types of measures
on the overall flood protection Peter Čadek, PhD.
Slovak Water Management Enterprise,
state enterprise
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Total costs of the flood protection measures
Calculated costs of current flood protection measures from the existed technical project documentation
Calculation of Total Costs of The Flood Protection Measures
Calculated costs from the preliminary project documentation by Classification of Construnction 2012 mean values
Annual expected costs for maintainance and
reconstructions multiplied by lifetime
of measure
Cat. 3: Transportation & technical facilities 1. Flood depth to damage
in [%] function 2. Unit prices 3. Flooded length / area
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Cat. 4: Agricultural land & forests 1. Kind & growing season
of crops as gross turnover in [€] per productive field in [ha]
2. Flooded area
Cat. 2: Parks, couryards... 1. Flood depth to damage
in [%] function 2. Unit prices for
infrastructure by Classification of Construction 2012
3. Flooded area
Estimation of Flood Damages • Evaluation of avoided potential (theoretical) flood
damages • Effectiveness of proposed flood measures • Estimation/Calculation of potential (theoretical)
flood damages
Total potential flood damage
Sum of the 4 Categories of Direct Flood Damages
with some surpluses
Cat. 1: Civic amenities... 1. Flood depth to damage
in [%] function 2. Unit prices for
infrastructre by Classification of Construction 2012
3. Flooded area
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Total avoided potential damage
Effectiveness of proposed flood measures
Evaluation
• Numerical Integration Method for calculation of the annual potential damage
• Each of the 4 categories for each designed discharges Q5 – Q1000
• Multiplied by lifetime period of proposed flood measures
Cost of proposed flood protection measures Effectiveness
Amount of total avoided potential damages
Estimation of Flood Damages • Evaluation of avoided potential (theoretical) flood
damages • Effectiveness of proposed flood measures • Estimation/Calculation of potential (theoretical)
flood damages
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
+ Measures in river basin management plans for the implementation
+ Avoided damage in [€]
+ Total costs for implemetation of measures of the Flood Risk Management Plans
+ Coefficient of economic efficiency of measures of the Flood Risk Management Plans
& Technical feasibility to complete implementation until 2021
Measures Prioritization 8 criteria basis of area diversification
List of measures to be implemented until 2021
Affected population by Q100
Affected economic facilities by Q100
Affected IPPC, SEVESO, contaminated sites, etc. threated water quality during Q100 inundation
Cultural and historical heritage in Q100 inundation
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Water Management Research Institute
Delegated scientific-research facility for the measures assessments
Key informations on the Ministry of Environment of Slovak Republic website:
• Approach discreption
• Forms for investors
• Mandate of Primary Assessment
Primary assessment by WFD Art. 4.7
No expected negative impact on ecological status or potential
Measures Realization
Measures can be proceed
Secondary assessment
No expected negative impact on ecological status or potential
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Distributed rainfall-runoff modelling 1. ISSOP model / GIS application
developed by ESPRIT, Inc. 2. Deterministic, physically based
model 3. From WETSPA derived model
podpovrchový
odtok
podzemný
odtok
povrchový odtok Zrážky
Infiltrácia
Kapilárny
výstup
Evapotranspirácia
Priesak
Podpovrchový
odtok
Podzemný odtok
PÔDA
Povrchový odtok
NASÝTENÁ
ZÓNA
POVRCH
ATMO-
SFÉRA
Slnečné
žiarenie
ácia
Critical flood waves designing Thesis: 100-year flood wave is affected
by 100-rainfall 1. Runoff designed waves calculations 2. Current landcover/landuse scenario 3. Extreme forestation scenario 4. Landcover/landuse optimizing
scenario
Landscape data inputs 1. Gridded DEM in 10 x 10 m resolution 2. Soil types 3. Landcover/Landuse 4. Stream network & Many derived synthetic layers
Estimation of designed rainfall Thesis: 100-year flood wave is affected
by 100-rainfall 1. N-year maximum daily rainfalls map 2. Rainfall event duration equals to
catchment time of concetration 3. In time-equal rainfall intensity
Assessment of possible impacts of current & proposed measures in catchments to achieve goals
of the Flood Risk Management Plans
3 designed flood waves for all 559 catchments
Comparison of effectiveness for proposed
measures in catchments
Extreme landcover / landuse change 1. Keep urbanized & industrial
areas unchanged 2. Afforestation of other LCLU
with potential natural vegetation
Current landcover / landuse
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Assessment of possible impacts of current & proposed measures in catchments to achieve goals
of the Flood Risk Management Plans
3 designed flood waves for all 559 catchments
Comparison of effectiveness for proposed
measures in catchments
Optimal landcover / landuse change 1. Keep urbanized & industrial areas
unchanged 2. Landcover / landuse types change
of areas with runoff coefficient higher 60 %
3. Arable lands change to pastures or grasslands
4. Other landcover / landuse types change to forest by potential natural vegetation
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Assessment of possible impacts of current & proposed measures in catchments to achieve goals
of the Flood Risk Management Plans
Mean change: – 4.85 % Category with highest mean
change:
Catchments up to 2 km²
– 9.5 % But huge range: - 40 % - 0 % -45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Pe
rce
ntu
al c
han
ge f
rom
pe
ak d
isch
arge
Area [km²]
Determination Between Catchment Area & Effectiveness
-45
-35
-25
-15
-50 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Focused on catchments up to 500 km² area Average evaluated area: 422 km²
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
up
to
2 k
m²
up
to
5 k
m²
up
to
10
km
²
up
to
50
km
²
up
to
10
0 k
m²
up
to
25
0 k
m²
up
to
50
0 k
m²
up
to
10
00
km
²
up
to
25
00
km
²
up
to
50
00
km
²
Pe
rce
ntu
al c
han
ge
Mean percentual change from peak discharge by area categories
Subbasin charateristics Area [km2] 51.69
Elevation [m a. s.l.]
Min: 752.05
Max: 2544.72
Mean: 1462.52
Mean slope [°] 18.42
Watercourse sensity [km.km2] 1.5
Forestation [%] 46.61
Impermeabile surfaces [%] 0.48
Network density of paved routes) [km.km2] 0.67
Network density of unpaved routes[km.km2] 2.75
Annual mean discharge [m3.s-1] 1.46
Basic informations
Watershed Dunajec a Poprad
Watercourse Poprad
Identification Code 3-01-02,03-1
Reach begin [r.km] 126.8
Reach end [r.km] 127.5
Reach length [km] 0.7
NUTS3 Prešovský kraj
NUTS4 Poprad
NUTS5 Svit
Subbasin ID 3-01-02-010
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Assessment Example:
Poprad River in town of Svit
Almost no effect
Peak discharge: – 0.67 %
Time of concent.: + 3.23 %
Runoff coeff.: 0 %
Sce
nar
io
Urb
aniz
ed
are
as
Ind
ust
rial
, Co
mm
erc
ial,
Traf
fic
Are
as
Min
ing,
Du
mp
,
Co
nst
ruct
ion
s
Gre
en
Urb
an A
reas
Ara
ble
lan
ds
Pe
rman
en
t cr
op
s
Pas
ture
s
Bro
ad-l
eaf
fo
rest
Mix
ed
fo
rest
Co
nif
ero
us
fore
st
Scle
rop
hyl
lou
s ve
geta
tio
n
Tran
siti
on
al w
oo
dla
nd
shru
b
Po
or
vege
tati
on
Bar
e R
ock
s
Inla
nd
we
tlan
ds
Wat
er
bo
die
s
Current status 0.66 0.65 0.0 0.2 3.92 0.52 7.91 4.36 0.01 42.23 8.98 0.11 0.98 28.46 0.0 1.0
Afforestation(diff. %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -3.92 -0.52 -5.71 10.61 0.0 0.63 0.0 -0.11 -0.98 0.0 0.0 0.0
Optimized LCLU(diff. %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.32 -0.27 0.6 0.85 0.0 0.17 0.01 0.0 -0.98 -0.06 0.0 0.0
Scenario Current status Afforestation Optimized LC/LU
Time of concentration [h] 5.17 100% 6.33 122.58% 5.33 103.23%
Designed rainfall intesity I100 [l.s-1.ha-1] 36.93 100% 36.93 100% 36.93 100%
Runoff Coefficient[-] 0.51 100% 0.49 95.23% 0.51 99.21%
Designed discharge Q100 [m3.s-1] 100.0 100% 94.62 94.62% 99.33 99.33%
Discharge difference 0 0% -5.38 -5.38% -0.67 -0.67%
Subbasin charateristics Area [km2] 1344.76
Elevation [m a. s.l.]
Min: 468.54
Max: 2643.27
Mean: 866.16
Mean slope [°] 11.26
Watercourse sensity [km.km2] 1.75
Forestation [%] 43.48
Impermeabile surfaces [%] 1.38
Network density of paved routes) [km.km2] 1.33
Network density of unpaved routes[km.km2] 2.69
Annual mean discharge [m3.s-1] 15.03
Basic informations
Watershed Dunajec a Poprad
Watercourse Poprad
Identification Code 3-01-02,03-1
Reach begin [r.km] 46.0
Reach end [r.km] 49.0
Reach length [km] 3.0
NUTS3 Prešovský kraj
NUTS4 Stará Ľubovňa
NUTS5 Plaveč
Subbasin ID 3-01-03-099
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Assessment Example:
Poprad River in village of Plaveč
Average effect
Peak discharge: – 4.51 %
Time of concent.: + 1.75 %
Runoff coeff.: – 0.02 %
Sce
nar
io
Urb
aniz
ed
are
as
Ind
ust
rial
, Co
mm
erc
ial,
Traf
fic
Are
as
Min
ing,
Du
mp
,
Co
nst
ruct
ion
s
Gre
en
Urb
an A
reas
Ara
ble
lan
ds
Pe
rman
en
t cr
op
s
Pas
ture
s
Bro
ad-l
eaf
fo
rest
Mix
ed
fo
rest
Co
nif
ero
us
fore
st
Scle
rop
hyl
lou
s ve
geta
tio
n
Tran
siti
on
al w
oo
dla
nd
shru
b
Po
or
vege
tati
on
Bar
e R
ock
s
Inla
nd
we
tlan
ds
Wat
er
bo
die
s
Current status 2.79 0.94 0.01 0.28 22.93 1.33 22.18 18.91 4.4 20,17 1.85 0.14 0.24 3.49 0.0 0.33
Afforestation(diff. %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -22.93 -1.33 46.14 0.0 0.69 0.00 -0.14 -0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0
Optimized LCLU(diff. %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.28 -9.57 -0.64 -3.51 6.64 0.0 0.69 0.0 0.0 -0.24 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scenario Current status Afforestation Optimized LC/LU
Time of concentration [h] 9.5 100% 11.83 122.58% 9.67 101.75%
Designed rainfall intesity I100 [l.s-1.ha-1] 22.94 100% 22.94 100% 22.94 100%
Runoff Coefficient[-] 0.53 100% 0.43 95.23% 0.51 95.58%
Designed discharge Q100 [m3.s-1] 865.0 100% 683.79 94.62% 825.97 95.49%
Discharge difference 0 0% -181.21 -5.38% -39.03 -4.51%
Subbasin charateristics Area [km2] 0.95
Elevation [m a. s.l.]
Min: 133.42
Max: 406.74
Mean: 222.65
Mean slope [°] 8.34
Watercourse sensity [km.km2] 0.95
Forestation [%] 25.88
Impermeabile surfaces [%] 3.76
Network density of paved routes) [km.km2] 2.55
Network density of unpaved routes [km.km2] 6.05
Annual mean discharge [m3.s-1] 0.01
Basic informations
Watershed Váh
Watercourse Na Pántoch spring
Identification Code 4-21-15-879
Reach begin [r.km] 0.0
Reach end [r.km] 1.65
Reach length [km] 1.65
NUTS3 Bratislavský kraj
NUTS4 Bratislava III
NUTS5 Bratislava - Rača
Subbasin ID 4-21-15-010
Peter Čadek, PhD. Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise [email protected]
Madrid
Assessment Example:
Na Pántoch spring in Bratislava - Rača
Extreme possitive effect
Peak discharge: – 28.83 %
Time of concent.: + 34.78 %
Runoff coeff.: – 0.14 %
Sce
nar
io
Urb
aniz
ed
are
as
Ind
ust
rial
, Co
mm
erc
ial,
Traf
fic
Are
as
Min
ing,
Du
mp
,
Co
nst
ruct
ion
s
Gre
en
Urb
an A
reas
Ara
ble
lan
ds
Pe
rman
en
t cr
op
s
Pas
ture
s
Bro
ad-l
eaf
fo
rest
Mix
ed
fo
rest
Co
nif
ero
us
fore
st
Scle
rop
hyl
lou
s ve
geta
tio
n
Tran
siti
on
al w
oo
dla
nd
shru
b
Po
or
vege
tati
on
Bar
e R
ock
s
Inla
nd
we
tlan
ds
Wat
er
bo
die
s
Current status 3.58 4.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.15 14.3 25.88 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Afforestation(diff. %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -52.15 -14.3 66.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Optimized LCLU(diff. %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -49.02 3.13 52.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Scenario Current status Afforestation Optimized LC/LU
Time of concentration [h] 3.83 100 % 5.5 143,48 % 5.17 134.78 %
Designed rainfall intesity I100 [l.s-1.ha-1] 42.14 100 % 42.14 100 % 42.14 100 %
Runoff Coefficient[-] 0.61 100 % 0.44 73,82 % 0.47 77.85 %
Designed discharge Q100 [m3.s-1] 4.7 100 % 3,06 65,1 % 3.35 71.17 %
Discharge difference 0 0 % -1.64 -34,9 % -1.35 -28.83 %
The Assessing
the effectiveness of flood protection measures
&
the proportion of different types of measures
on the overall flood protection Peter Čadek, PhD.
Slovak Water Management Enterprise,
state enterprise
