Uncertainties about climate change consequences, changing societal requirements and system complexity require flood protection asset managers to continuously evaluate their asset management policies and practice to manage risk and improve the resilience of their assets. However, there are many challenges in doing this, with asset operators often facing conflicting interests and major uncertainties about the future needs for asset performance. In the EU Interreg IV FAIR project, flood protection asset owners and operators, with scientific partners from the North Sea Region of Europe collaborated to develop practical guidance for adaptive asset management of flood protection infrastructure. The central component of this guidance is the FAIR framework, presented here. The framework combines insights and principles from ISO 55000 on asset management and ISO 14090 on climate adaptation with asset operator experiences to provide a practical guide for integration of asset management considerations within both strategic and operational contexts via a tactical handshake. This is a means to avoid the common lack of connection between strategic plans and operational practice. The applicability of the framework is illustrated with examples from Pilot Cases within the FAIR project, in which its value in terms of improved asset management and reduced costs has been demonstrated.@en

EU Member States invest some €2.5 billion per year in flood protection, yet flood damages continue to increase. A new approach to the planning, design and management of flood protection assets is needed to ensure risks are better managed and asset management is aligned with broader socio-economic policies and supporting governance systems. This paper sets out a policy framework to enable this transition. The framework results from a collaboration of researchers and practitioners from around the North Sea. The findings highlight common challenges and identify four priority Policy Recommendations in response to these: ‘Break free of the silo’ by aligning planning processes; ‘Mind the gap’ between strategic and operational choices; ‘Prepare for change’ by developing multi-functional and flexible plans; and ‘Make space for innovation’ by seeking to manage risk rather than avoiding it.@en

Climate change is presenting one of the main challenges to our planet. In parallel, all regions of the world are projected to urbanise further. Consequently, sustainable development challenges will be increasingly concentrated in cities. A resulting impact is the increment of expected urban flood risk in many areas around the globe. Adaptation to climate change is an opportunity to improve urban conditions through the implementation of green-blue infrastructures, which provide multiple benefits besides flood mitigation. However, this is not an easy task since urban drainage systems are complex structures. This work focuses on a method to analyse the trade-offs when different benefits are pursued in stormwater infrastructure planning. A hydrodynamic model was coupled with an evolutionary optimisation algorithm to evaluate different green-blue-grey measures combinations. This evaluation includes flood mitigation as well as the enhancement of co-benefits. We confirmed optimisation as a helpful decision-making tool to visualise trade-offs among flood management strategies. Our results show that considering co-benefits enhancement as an objective boosts the selection of green-blue infrastructure. However, flood mitigation effectiveness can be diminished when extra benefits are pursued. Finally, we proved that combining green-blue-grey measures is particularly important in urban spaces when several benefits are considered simultaneously.@en

Green-blue infrastructures in urban spaces offer several co-benefits besides flood risk reduction, such as water savings, energy savings due to less cooling usage, air quality improvement and carbon sequestration. Traditionally, these co-benefits were not included in decision making processes for flood risk management. In this work we present a method to include the monetary analysis of these co-benefits into a cost-benefits analysis of flood risk mitigation measures. This approach was applied to a case study, comparing costs and benefits with and without co-benefits. Different intervention strategies were considered, using green, blue and grey measures and combinations of them. The results obtained illustrate the importance of assessing co-benefits when identifying best adaptation strategies to improve urban flood risk management. Otherwise green infrastructure is likely to appear less efficient than more conventional grey infrastructure. Moreover, a mix of green, blue and grey infrastructures is likely to result in the best adaptation strategy as these three alternatives tend to complement each other. Grey infrastructure has good performance at reducing the risk of flooding, whilst green infrastructure brings in multiple additional benefits that grey infrastructure cannot offer.@en