NEW SAFETY STANDARDS FOR COASTAL FLOOD DEFENCES IN THE NETHERLANDS

Sebastiaan N. Jonkman, Ruben Jongejan, Bob Maaskant, Han Vrijling

Abstract


The Dutch government is in the process of revising its flood safety policy. The current safety standards for flood defences in the Netherlands are largely based on the outcomes of cost-benefit analyses. Loss of life has not been considered separately in the choice for current standards. This article presents the results of a research project that evaluated the potential roles of two risk metrics, individual and societal risk, to support decision-making about new flood safety standards. These risk metrics are already used in the Dutch major hazards policy for the evaluation of risks to the public. Individual risk concerns the annual probability of death of a person. Societal risk concerns the probability of an event with many fatalities. Technical aspects of the use of individual and societal risk metrics in flood risk assessments as well as policy implications are discussed. Preliminary estimates of nationwide levels of societal risk are presented. Societal risk levels appear relatively high in the South Western part of the country where densely populated dike rings are threatened by a combination of river and coastal floods. Options for the application of the individual and societal risk in the new flood safety policy are presented and discussed.

Keywords


risk; loss of life; societal risk; safety standards

References


Ale BJM. Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands. Risk Analysis, 2005. 25(2): 231-241.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00585.x

PMid:15876200

Ale BJM, Golbach GAM, Goos D, Ham K, Janssen LAM, Shield SR. Benchmark risk analysis models.

Bilthoven, the Netherlands, RIVM report 610066015. 2001.

Apel H, Thieken AH, Merz B, Bloschl GA. Probabilistic modelling system for assessing flood risk. Natural Hazards, 2006; 38(1–2): 79–100.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-8603-7

Ball DJ, Floyd PJ. Societal risks. Report submitted to HSE. 1998.

Bottelberghs PH. Risk analysis and safety policy developments in the Netherlands. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2000; 71: 117-123.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(99)00072-2

Delta Committee. Working together with water – Findings of the Deltacommissie 2008. Den Haag, Netherlands: Hollandia Printing, 2008.

Evans AW, Verlander NQ. What is wrong with criterion FN-lines for judging the tolerability of risk. Risk Analysis 1997; 17 (2): 157–168.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00855.x

Goudappel Coffeng, Universiteit Twente. Veiligheid Nederland in Kaart – modellering en analyse van evacuatie. Delft, DWW007/Fok/0093. 28 April 2008.

Jongejan RB. How safe is safe enough? The government's response to industrial and flood risks. Doctoral thesis. Delft University of Technology. Delft, The Netherlands. 2008. Jonkman SN, Vrijling JK, Kok M. Flood risk assessment in the Netherlands: A case study for dike ring South Holland, Risk Analysis, 2008; 28 (5): 1357-1373.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01103.x

PMid:18761731

Jonkman S.N., Jongejan R.B., Maaskant B. (2010) The use of individual and societal risk criteria within the Dutch flood safety policy - nationwide estimates of societal risk and policy applications. Risk Analysis, Accepted, in Press.

Klijn F, Baan P, de Bruijn K, Kwadijk J, van Buuren R. Overstromingsrisico's in Nederland in een veranderend klimaat. Delft, WL rapport Q4290.00. 2007.

Merz B, Elmer F, Thieken AH. Significance of "high probability / low damage" versus "low probability / high damage" flood events. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2009; 9: 1033-1046.http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1033-2009

MinVenW (Ministry of Transport Public Works and Water Management). Floris-study: full report. The Hague. DWW report 2005-081. 2005.

MinVenW (Ministry of Transport Public Works and Water Management). Ontwerp nationaal waterplan (in Dutch). Zaandam, Netherlands: Kwak & van Daalen & Ronday, 2008.

Slovic P. Perception of Risk. Science, 1987; 236: 280-285.http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507

PMid:3563507

Stallen PJM, Geerts R, Vrijling JK. Three conceptions of quantified societal risk. Risk Analysis, 1996;16(5): 635-644.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00813.x

Uijt de Haag PAM, Gooijer L, Frijns PJMG, Quantitative risk calculation for land use decisions: the validity and the need for unification, In: Kao T.M. Zio M. Ho V. (Eds.). Int. Conf. on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management. PSAM9 Hong Kong. (digital proceedings) 2008.

Van Manen SE, Brinkhuis M. Quantitative flood risk assessment for Polders. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005; 90: 229-237.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.002

Vrijling JK, van Hengel W, Houben RJ. Acceptable risk as a basis for design. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1998; 59: 141-150.

Vrijling JK, van Hengel W, Houben RJ. A framework for risk evaluation, Journal of hazardous materials, 1995; 43 (3): 245-261.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3894(95)91197-V


Full Text: PDF

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.