water

Article
A Framework to Evaluate Urban Flood Resilience of
Design Alternatives for Flood Defence Considering
Future Adverse Scenarios
Osvaldo M. Rezende 1, * , Francis M. Miranda 1 , Assed N. Haddad 1,2
and Marcelo G. Miguez 1,2,3,4
1 Programa de Engenharia Ambiental—PEA-POLI-EQ/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil
2 Escola Politécnica—POLI/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil
3 Programa de Engenharia Urbana—PEU-POLI/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil
4 Programa de Engenharia Civil—PEC-COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro 21941-450, Brazil
* Correspondence: om.rezende@hidro.ufrj.br; Tel.: +55-21-3938-7830




Received: 30 April 2019; Accepted: 2 July 2019; Published: 17 July 2019


Abstract: In urbanized plains that are subject to flooding, the socioeconomic aspects, climate
characteristics, built environment, and riverine processes exhibit bi-univocal relationships with
the flood formation itself, creating a pattern of development without a predefined equilibrium
state. The complexity of processes involved in flood management and the need for a comparative
assessment method to hierarchise different design alternatives or planning scenarios requires practical
and quantitative methods for urban diagnoses, including flood risk and resilience aspects. This paper
proposes an alternative pathway to evaluate design alternatives for urban flood mitigation, assessing
resilience in quantitative terms. In this way, a methodological framework is presented suppress to
evaluate flood resilience in urban watersheds planning, through the application of the Urban Flood
Resilience Index (UFRI) and Future Scenarios Criteria (FSC). A case study illustrates the method using
an urban watershed in Rio de Janeiro/Brazil. This study considered two possible design alternatives
for flood control, with concentrated and distributed measures. The resilience mapping using the
UFRI showed that the adoption of distributed measures could increase the areas classified as showing
very high resilience by 41%, while very low resilience areas would be reduced by 87%. The FSC is able to
present the integrated results of resilience variation from present and future conditions, considering,
for example, climate change effects or unplanned urbanisation scenarios. The framework is able
to perform comparisons between alternatives, showing the advantages associated with adopting
distributed measures over the watershed, which reflected in a resilience value that was 24% higher
when compared to the results obtained for the concentrated solutions scenario.

Keywords: flood resilience; flood risk management; urban flood; resilience index; flood control
evaluation; climate future scenarios; urban stormwater planning

1. Introduction
Although floods are natural phenomena responsible for several ecosystem processes, the increase
of socioeconomic systems exposed to their impacts introduces a challenging issue to urban planners.
The complex functions of urban areas need to be considered in the design process of urban stormwater
systems, increasing resilience to climate change and enhancing attraction and social inclusion of urban
environments [1] especially regarding flood management. Land use changes, urbanisation growth
and climate change effects can potentialise the complexity of interactions between cities and urban
floods [2].

Water 2019, 11, 1485; doi:10.3390/w11071485 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2019, 11, 1485 2 of 28

Since the first industrial revolution, increasingly high density cities have to deal with public
health problems related to water. After managing wastewater problems, public policies have been
focused on stormwater control strategies to increase flood resistance, based on improvements to the
hydraulic capacities of systems. This fact has enabled the rapid and efficient conveyance of stormwater
out of cities, characterising the concept of the Drained City, as defined in a historical review made by
Brown et al. [3]. However, in this context, the intense process of soil sealing inherent to urbanisation
and the introduction of drainage networks tend to increase runoff downstream, magnifying damages
in already flooded areas and exposing new areas to potential flooding.
Only from the 1970s, this Drained City model started to be criticised, providing the basis for
the development of the Flood Risk Management (FRM) approach [4]. In a first attempt to better
deal with increased flooding impacts on urban systems, the stakeholders started to encourage efforts
to design flood control measures based on detention techniques as a compensatory solution [5].
However, the number of flood events and the resulting damages are still increasing, hitting 45% of
disaster-affected people worldwide between 1998 and 2017 [6]. A more comprehensive vision of urban
environments brought some new ideas to flood management, such as the Water Sensitive Urban Design
approach [3] and the Sponge Cities concept [7]. Recently, built and natural environments have been
considered together in flood mitigating measures; this approximation incorporates multiple benefits
both to nature and urban health [8]. This approach tries to reduce the economic and social costs for
communities which are identified by Barría et al. [9] as being consequences of deficient urban planning
and the lack of integrated disaster risk management plans.
In this way, distributed intervention is prioritised, with spatialised benefits, mitigating the impact
of soil sealing through facilitating infiltration and retention processes to recover hydrological conditions
similar to those of pre-urbanisation. Several concepts have been incorporated into urban drainage
discussion, assuming different terminologies, such as sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) in
the United Kingdom, stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and low impact development
(LID) in the USA [10], and more recently, as water sensitive urban design (WSUD) in Australia, or
green infrastructure (GI) worldwide [11]. Fletcher et al. [8] present a detailed review of the history
of how different concepts and related terms appeared and are being used in the management of
urban stormwater. Mainly, the techniques involved in these concepts seek to minimise the effects of
urbanisation growth. In summary, the sustainable drainage approach seeks to increase the infiltration
of rainwaters into the soil by reducing and/or slowing runoff, and thus, decreasing the amount of
water in storm drains and rivers during heavy rains [12]. Furthermore, it provides opportunities to
recover stormwater retention capacity. These drainage techniques minimise the negative effects of
urbanisation, and have proven to be more sustainable while working better in the long term [13–15].
While reducing the negative impacts of traditional flood control measures, treating the watershed
in a systemic way is a choice which is still based on a control approach, as stated by Morita [16].
This situation maintains the pursuit of the stability of a system, since the concept of stability can be
seen as the tendency of a system to return to an equilibrium position after a disturbance, approaching
very closely the classic concept of resilience in engineering [17]. However, in urbanised plains which
are subject to floods, socioeconomic aspects, climate characteristics, the built environment, and riverine
processes affect the flood formation itself, in bi-univocal relations, thereby creating a pattern of
development without a predefined equilibrium state. More than that, it is expected that improving
knowledge about the problem will lead to a better new state. In this way, planning urban development
based on the search for stability will be problematic when applied to large spatial and temporal scales,
in which the systems are inherently dynamic [18].
Anthropic changes in natural systems aiming to adapt spaces to human interests have been
deeply investigated in hydrological studies, aiming to understand the urbanisation impact on flood
patterns [19–22]. The opposite situation has been gaining an increasing role in academic research,
seeking to understand how flooding behaviour and the environment supporting capacity can define
human settlement aspects [23]. However, the bi-univocal relationship between flood dynamics and
Water 2019, 11, 1485 3 of 28

human development is yet to be properly addressed. This lack of understanding has increased the risk
of flooding even in situations where large investments have been made to protect human assets, since
a false perception of safety can lead people to expose themselves even greater risks. To better address
the dynamics of flood-human interactions and the associated feedback, some researchers are treating
this relationship as a socio-hydrology concept [24].
Given the unpredictability associated with floods and the uncertainties of human behaviour in the
face of extreme events, resilient strategies must be developed and implemented once resilience itself has
been inherently designed to deal with uncertainty [25]. Since one of the goals of the resilience approach
is to reduce the system vulnerabilities, and considering that “the way that society perceives risk is
crucial to understanding the existing vulnerabilities” [26], risk perception becomes an important issue
to be addressed in the FRM. The urban development boom in flood-prone areas occurs in response
to historical flood control efforts, achieved by huge drainage works usually constructed after great
disaster events [27]. As a consequence, flood risk increases as the exposure of goods and people
intensifies. The resilience approach makes it possible to invert simple damage reduction reasoning,
converging solutions capable of dealing with future uncertainties and adversities. [28].
The concept of resilience has been widely employed, mainly in the fields of materials science [29,30],
ecology [31], urban engineering [32], sociology [33], psychology [34], geography [35] among others.
Folke [36] presents an overview of the use of the concept of resilience in the field of ecology from the
1960s to the present day.
Many authors have been praising efforts to reduce misunderstandings and disagreements about the
correct application of the resilience concept, as well to expand the discussion [37,38]. Keating et al. [39]
defined disaster resilience as “the ability of a system, community, or society to pursue its social,
ecological, and economic development and growth objectives while managing its disaster risk over
time in a mutually reinforcing way”. Chen and Leandro [40] highlighted the fact that academic
descriptions of the resilience concept applied to urban flood comprise at least two major elements:
“1. The coping capacity when facing flooding, and 2. the recovery capacity after flooding”.
In the context of urban floods and urban engineering, resilience can be briefly defined as “the
ability of an infrastructure asset to maintain its most important processes, characteristics and functions
even under extreme events, as well as the ability to recover and reassume its normal functions right
after the event” [28,41].
It is important here to clarify how the resilience concept will be considered in this paper.
As mentioned, resilience is a multi-faceted concept, involving several different possibilities.
The resilience concept has its origin in material science and, in this context, it responds to the
capacity of absorbing energy and returning to the previous state. As a consequence, resilience in
engineering is usually related to the capacity of a system to resist changes in state and continue
functioning. However, the resilience concept can be found in many different subjects. A significant
variation of this concept refers to ecological resilience, which is responsible for a great number of urban
resilience solutions regarding development challenges. Ecological resilience responds to adaptive
capacity and is related to the survival of the species. Joining these two concepts in the city environment
leads to an interesting interpretation. Considering that cities are socioeconomic systems settled over a
natural supporting system, we can join both definitions (engineering and ecological resilience) and
define flood resilience in this work as the ability of the city to resist flooding over time, being able
to adapt itself and continue functioning, even under stress conditions, and to recover rapidly from
material losses.
More recently, frameworks and methodologies have been developed aiming to establish flood
resilience [42,43]. Cutter et al. [44] stated that despite efforts to assess the dimensions of community
resilience, the main challenge is to develop standard metrics to measure disaster resilience. Many factors,
such as hydrological characteristics, population density, land use, and climate change can affect flood
risk in urban catchment areas [16], which can be mitigated by structural and non-structural measures.
Keating et al. [39] highlighted the urgent need for the development of disaster resilience measurement
Water 2019, 11, 1485 4 of 28

tools, giving rise to a better understanding of the resilience of key components, the improvement
of resilience measuring skills and the comparison of resilience changes over time. The complexity
of the processes involved in flood management and the need for a comparative assessment method
to hierarchise different design alternatives or planning scenarios require practical and quantitative
methods for urban diagnoses including flood risk aspects. Batica [45] suggests that indicator-based
approaches can provide a comprehensive view of the vulnerability and resilience of a city or community.
In turn, indicators can be defined as direct or indirect measures calculated from processed data to
represent an attribute of a system of interest [46]. Therefore, flooding events can impact both natural and
built environments, demanding an assessment method which is capable of identifying the particular
consequences in each of these sub-systems, dealing with a social-ecological system (SES), which can be
understood as the one defined by the interdependence between people and nature [47].
Composite indicators or indexes can offer a potential way of dealing with the multivariate and complex
nature of interactions between flooding and SES [47]. An index “aggregates multiple individual indicators
to provide a synthetic measure of a complex, multidimensional, and meaningful societal issue” [46].
The range of possible stormwater design alternatives, the different decisions concerning land use and
urban development and the uncertainties about climate change scenarios require assessment tools which
are capable of supporting both urban planning, providing better design choices, and governance strategies
for improving flood resilience. As stated by Zhang [48], the approach to stormwater management
must consider long-term impacts to guarantee urban sustainability. The resilience approach deals with
future uncertainties and is directly related to looking for sustainable development. In this context,
this study presents a framework to quantitatively measure flood resilience associated with different design
alternatives, considering flood mitigation measures and future stressing scenarios, allowing stakeholders
to make comparisons of design alternatives and to rank them according to flood resilience criteria.
To achieve this goal, this work draws upon a proposition from Miguez & Veról [28], where a
framework for ranking flood mitigation alternatives was proposed, resulting in a multi-criteria index
called Flood Resilience Index (FResI). This index was intended to give an integrated number in order
to approach the flood resilience status of an urban watershed; its development was based upon a
previously proposed index representing the flood risk assessment named Flood Risk Index—FRI [49].
In the present work, a new index, the Urban Flood Resilience Index (UFRI) [50,51], which is
an evolution of the work of Bertilsson et al. [52], is used to substitute the FRI in the Adapted Flood
Resilience Index (aFResI), in an integrated composition built to compare the resilience behaviour
over time, from the current situation to future scenarios. The new adapted method also revises the
mathematical formulation of the original proposition. This framework is applied in a highly urbanised
watershed in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with huge flood problems. Therefore, the future scenario chosen to
further stress the current situation considers possible climate change, increasing rainfall intensity and
rising mean sea levels (since Rio de Janeiro is a coastal city).
The main novelty presented in this paper is the proposition to use a direct quantitative tool to measure
urban flood resilience in an integrated framework to support decision making on flood control projects and
urban development decisions. This proposed approach considers future scenarios of adversity, allowing
stakeholders to evaluate the loss of efficiency of flood mitigation measurements in face of these stressors.
It is important to note, however, that this is not intended to be an isolated decision tool. After ranking
the alternatives, considering their resilience behaviour, the economic aspect still has to be considered,
and a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) should be made over the lifetime of the considered project alternatives.
As stated by Keating et al. [39] “there is no one-size-fits-all “resilience” measure, nor should there be”.
Therefore, the framework proposed in this study is an ongoing research project, subject to improvements;
nonetheless, it has provided suitable results for the present study case.

2. Material and Methods

The study was carried out using a computational modelling tool to support hydrological and
hydrodynamics simulation scenarios, intending to give basic information about flood consequences
Water 2019, 11, 1485 5 of 28

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 28

over the urban systems. The result of the modelling process characterises the flood events, based on
over the urban systems. The result of the modelling process characterises the flood events, based on
a design storm with a 25-year return period (RP). This RP was adopted due to the official Brazilian
a design storm with a 25-year return period (RP). This RP was adopted due to the official Brazilian
government
government requirements
requirements forfor
flood control
flood design.
control Departing
design. fromfrom
Departing floodflood
characterisation, and joining
characterisation, and
thejoining
socioeconomic information (obtained from the available census-2010), the UFRI can
the socioeconomic information (obtained from the available census-2010), the UFRI can be builtbeand
used inand
built the used
methodological frameworkframework
in the methodological proposed in this work.
proposed Thework.
in this detailed
Thesteps of this
detailed framework
steps of this
areframework
describedarein the following
described sections.
in the following sections.

2.1. Computational
2.1. ComputationalModelling
ModellingSystem
System
InInorder
orderto obtain information
to obtain on flood
information on patterns for different
flood patterns for scenarios,
different hydrologic and hydrodynamic
scenarios, hydrologic and
modelling
hydrodynamictools were used to
modelling support
tools the simulation
were used to support of theasimulation
rainfall event
of a with 25 event
rainfall years with
of RP.
25Flooding
years
characteristics
of RP. Flooding werecharacteristics
obtained using the Urban
were obtained Flow Cellthe
using Model—MODCEL
Urban Flow Cell[53,54]. This model is[53,54].
Model—MODCEL based on
theThis
original
modelwork by Zanobetti
is based and Lorgeré
on the original work by [55]; it assumes
Zanobetti that the
and Lorgeré watershed
[55]; it assumes can bethe
that subdivided
watershedinto
can betypes
various subdivided into various
of flow-cells which types
interactof with
flow-cells whichthrough
each other interact 1Dwith each
flow other through
Equations, 1D flowthe
representing
Equations,
watershed representing
surface the pattern,
and its flow watershed surfacea and
including set ofitsvaried
flow hydraulic
pattern, including
structures.a MODCEL
set of varied
can be
described as a quasi-2D cell model which integrates the hydrological processes observed in each cellthe
hydraulic structures. MODCEL can be described as a quasi-2D cell model which integrates into a
hydrological
looped processes
hydrodynamic observed
model, in each
creating cell into
a spatial a looped hydrodynamic
representation that interconnectsmodel,surface
creating a spatial
flow, channel
representation
flows that interconnects
and storm drains. Therefore, asurface flow, channel
dual drainage approach flows and storm
supports drains.soTherefore,
this model, that flow acan
dual
occur
simultaneously on both layers, i.e., surface and underground [56]. This feature makes it possible toi.e.,
drainage approach supports this model, so that flow can occur simultaneously on both layers, assess
surface
both riverand underground
flooding [56]. Thisnetwork
and the drainage feature failures.
makes it possible to assess both river flooding and the
drainage network failures.
The resulting grid is irregular, in the sense that each cell may assume the proper form to represent
The resulting grid is irregular, in the sense that each cell may assume the proper form to
a certain portion of the terrain. Different scales may co-exist in the representation of the cells grid.
represent a certain portion of the terrain. Different scales may co-exist in the representation of the
The cell limits can be defined by their topographic characteristics, using watershed reasoning, but they
cells grid. The cell limits can be defined by their topographic characteristics, using watershed
can also be defined by urban features, such as buildings contours. The representation of a schematic
reasoning, but they can also be defined by urban features, such as buildings contours. The
urban cell is shown in Figure 1. Different hydraulic relations may define the connection between cells.
representation of a schematic urban cell is shown in Figure 1. Different hydraulic relations may define
Thethemost used is the
connection Saint-Venant
between dynamic
cells. The most Equation,
used is the butSaint-Venant
local structures, like weirs,
dynamic orifices,
Equation, butgates
localand
pumps, may also be represented.
structures, like weirs, orifices, gates and pumps, may also be represented.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of an urban cell and how it works in a model mesh.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of an urban cell and how it works in a model mesh.
During a storm event, urban landscapes (as seen in Figure 2A) can flood in response to two different
During
types of failure:a channel
storm event, urbanorlandscapes
overflows (asoverflows.
storm drain seen in Figure 2A) occurs
The first can flood
when in rivers
response
andto two
channels
different types of failure: channel overflows or storm drain overflows. The first occurs when
cannot support the total flow resulting from storm waters drained from the watershed, as in case B of rivers
and channels cannot support the total flow resulting from storm waters drained from the watershed,
Figure 2. The second occurs when urban drainage systems, mainly composed of storm drains, are not able
 Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 28
Water 2019, 11, 1485 6 of 28
as in case B of Figure 2. The second occurs when urban drainage systems, mainly composed of storm
drains, are not able to deal with the runoff resulting from a storm event, drained by streets, lots,
to deal with the
squares, runoff
etc., as in resulting
case C of from
Figurea 2.
storm event,
When both drained by streets,
systems fail, there islots, squares,urban
generalised etc., as in case C of
flooding,
Figurerepresented
2. When bothin Figure 2 byfail,
systems casethere
D. is generalised urban flooding, represented in Figure 2 by case D.

Figure 2. Urban
Figure landscape
2. Urban landscapeflooding possibilities.(A)(A)
flooding possibilities. urban
urban landscapes;
landscapes; (B) channel
(B) channel overflows;
overflows; (C)
stormdrain
(C) storm drainoverflows;
overflows; (D)
(D)urban
urbanflooding.
flooding.

2.2. Urban FloodFlood

2.2. Urban Resilience Index—UFRI
Resilience Index—UFRI
To support the the
To support discussion
discussionabout
about residual riskand
residual risk and compose
compose the methodology
the methodology proposed
proposed here, anhere,
indexisisdeveloped
an index developed to to aid
aid the
the planning
planning andand design
designofofurban
urbandrainage
drainagesolutions,
solutions,adopting a
adopting a
methodology that departs from the basic concepts of risk management and evolves
methodology that departs from the basic concepts of risk management and evolves to consolidate a to consolidate a
Resilience
Resilience Index.
Index. At this
At this point,
point, it is
it is importantto
important to highlight
highlight the
theunderstanding
understanding of resilience adopted
of resilience in in
adopted
this study, broadly discussed in the introduction section.
this study, broadly discussed in the introduction section.
The UFRI proposition makes it possible to build resilience maps and, consequently, to work to
The UFRI proposition makes it possible to build resilience maps and, consequently, to work to
reduce risk consequences over time, especially regarding avoided losses. It is based on the index
reduce risk consequences
presented as S-FResI inover time,etespecially
Bertilsson regarding
al. [52], and avoided
was expanded losses.
in this work.ItThe
is based on the index
UFRI combines
presented as S-FResI in Bertilsson et al. [52], and was expanded in this work. The
three sub-indexes, representing the three properties of resilience cited by Proag [57]: UFRI combines three
sub-indexes, representing the three properties of resilience cited by Proag [57]:
(i) absorptive capacity—the ability of the system to absorb the disruptive event, represented by the
(i) absorptive capacity—the
Sub-index abilityCapacity
of Risk to Resistance of the system
(𝑆𝑖 ). to absorb the disruptive event, represented by the
(ii)Sub-index
adaptive capacity—the
of Risk ability
to Resistance to adapt
Capacity (SitoR the
). event, represented by the Sub-index of Risk to System
Functional Capacity (𝑆𝑖 ).
(ii) adaptive capacity—the ability to adapt to the event, represented by the Sub-index of Risk to System
(iii) restorative capacity—the ability of the system to recover, represented by the Sub-index of Risk
Functional Capacity (SiF ).
to Material Recovery Capacity (𝑆𝑖 ).
(iii) restorative capacity—the ability of the system to recover, represented by the Sub-index of Risk to
EachRecovery
Material sub-index considers
Capacity (SiChazard-related
). indicators, covering maximum flood depths, water
flow velocities and flood permanence times, combined with related vulnerability indicators. The
Each sub-index
calculation considers
of UFRI hazard-related
uses Equation indicators,
(1); the hierarchical covering maximum
arrangement floodand
of the indicators depths, water flow
sub-indexes
velocities
that and floodthe
compose permanence
UFRI is shown times,
in combined
Figure 3. Thewith related composition
complete vulnerabilityofindicators.
the index isThe calculation
shown in
of UFRI uses4.Equation
Figure (1);indicator
Each of the the hierarchical arrangement
formulations is presentedof below.
the indicators and sub-indexes that compose
the UFRI is shown in Figure 3. The=complete
𝑈𝐹𝑅𝐼 𝑎 ∙ (1 − 𝑆𝑖 composition
) + 𝑏 ∙ (1 − 𝑆𝑖 of
) +the index
𝑐 ∙ (1 − 𝑆𝑖 is) shown in Figure 4. (1)
Each of
the indicator formulations is presented below.

UFRI = a·(1 − SiR ) + b·(1 − SiC ) + c·(1 − SiF ) (1)

Parameters a, b and c are the weights associated with each sub-index. In the present study, the weighting
process assumes equal values for all of them, since it is not the aim of this study to state the relative
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 28
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 28
Water Parameters
2019, 11, 1485 a, b and c are the weights associated with each sub-index. In the present study, the
7 of 28
weightingParameters
process a,assumes
b and c are thevalues
equal weightsforassociated withsince
all of them, eachitsub-index.
is not theIn aimtheofpresent study,
this study tothe
state
theweighting process assumes
relative importance equal
of each values
term for all
in the of them,composition.
resilience since it is not the aim of
In fact, this study
defining thistorelative
state
importance
the of
relative each term
importance in the
of resilience
each termcomposition.
in the In fact,
resilience defining
composition.this relative
In fact,
importance is something that may vary from case to case, and which should be a prerogative of importance
defining is
this something
relative
importance
that may makers.
decision is something
vary from thatand
case to case, maywhich
vary should
from casebe atoprerogative
case, and which should
of decision be a prerogative of
makers.
decision makers.

Figure
Figure
Figure 3. 3.
TheThehierarchical
The hierarchicalarrangement
hierarchical arrangement of
arrangement of Urban
of Urban
Urban Flood
FloodResilience
Flood ResilienceIndex—UFRI.
Index—UFRI.

Figure4.4.Composition
Figure Compositionof
of the
the Urban Flood Resilience
Urban Flood ResilienceIndex—UFRI.
Index—UFRI.

2.2.1. Sub-Index of Risk to Resistance Capacity (SiR ) Flood Resilience Index—UFRI.

2.2.1. Sub-Index ofFigure
Risk to4.Resistance
Composition of the Urban
Capacity (𝑆𝑖 )
The SiR represents resistance to damage, according to the degree of exposure of the population and
2.2.1. Sub-Index
the existing ofin
assets Risk
theto Resistance
basin, i.e., theCapacity
exposure(𝑆𝑖 )
of buildings and urban infrastructure to the potential
damages of a given flood. Three indicators are used in its formulation: (i) the building exposure
Water 2019, 11, 1485 8 of 28

indicator; (ii) the urban infrastructure exposure; and (iii) the flood depth indicator. This sub-index is
calculated using Equation (2). h    i
SiR = a· Ie n1 + b· Iei n2 ·IH n3 (2)

Ie —building exposure indicator.

The building exposure indirectly indicates the exposure of people. It is represented by built
density area (BD), in m2 /ha. The higher the density, the more vertical the buildings, indicating a greater
occupation, either residential or commercial. The values are normalised in a range between 0 and 1,
with the highest exposure value (equal to 1) being attributed from the third quartile of built density
distribution in the basin (and upwards), in order to avoid non-representative values of isolated high
densities, which could distort the scale. This method was applied to the Canal do Mangue catchment,
used as a case study, resulting in Equation (3).

Ie = 4.43·10−5 ·BD 0 ≤ BD < 22, 596

(3)
Ie = 1.0 BD ≥ 22, 596

Iei —urban infrastructure exposure indicator.

This indicator represents an indirect measure of urban infrastructure exposure by road density
(RD), in m/ha. The greater the density of roads in a region, the greater the tendency for coverage
of infrastructure services such as water supply, sanitation, public lighting, cable services, etc.
The normalisation of the indicator was done similarly to Ie , with the highest exposure value
being attributed to the third quartile of the sample and above. Values also vary between 0 and
1. The construction of the Iei to the Canal do Mangue catchment resulted in Equation (4).

Iei = 3.25·10−3 ·RD 0 ≤ RD < 284

(4)
Iei = 1.0 RD ≥ 284

IH —flood depth indicator.

This indicator computes the potential damage of the considered flood event, representing the
potential hazard. The maximum flood depth h gives the value of the indicator, that is, depending on
the maximum depths and the expected damages caused by these depths, a normalised value between
0 and 1 is attributed to the indicator through an exponential function. Thus, the greater the depth of
flooding, the greater the potential damage to structures, goods and people exposed. A water depth of
1.30 m, which was chosen to represent very high potential damage (this would be the value that could
cause integral losses inside a household), represents the highest value, while water depths bellow
0.15 m nullify the indicator. The normalised formulation can be seen in Equation (5).

IH = 0.0 h ≤ 0.15
IH = 0.465· ln(h) + 0.878 0.15 < h < 1.30 (5)
IH = 1.0 h ≥ 1.30

2.2.2. Sub-Index of Risk to Material Recovery Capacity (SiC )

This represents the socioeconomic part of the flood risk, through a “relative value” indicator
relating the flood depth to the potential damage according to the income range of the population which
is directly exposed to flood. Its formulation is presented in the form of Equation (6).

SiC = (Irv ·a) + (Isv ·b) (6)

Irv —relative value indicator.

This represents the economic recovery capacity of a region against the damages of a given flood
event. The indicator is calculated using the relationship between potential economic losses and the
capacity to replace these losses, represented by the difference between the total income and the average
Water 2019, 11, 1485 9 of 28

expenditure of a family. In this way, Irv is intended to represent a socioeconomic variable, equalised
according to the relationship between the potential loss caused by the flooding event and the economic
class of the exposed population, assessing not an absolute loss, but rather, the ability to recover from
the damage suffered. Irv is given by Equation (7).

(CDB + CDC)·AB ·IS

IRV = (7)
(12·TI·RC)

where

CDB: Cost of damage to a building

CDC: Cost of damage to building contents
AB : Total area built in the analysis unit
IS : Building susceptibility indicator
TI: Total Income of the population in the analysed region
RC: Average replacement capacity of the population in the analysed region

The whole formulation of this indicator can be found in Rezende et al. (2018) [50] and is based in
Salgado (1995) [58].
IS —building susceptibility sub-indicator.
The indicator of the susceptibility of buildings is represented by the average height of the
buildings in the analysed region. Buildings with one floor are more susceptible to flooding damages
than multi-floors buildings. This indicator is used as a correction factor to the Irv , which is based on
flood depth-damage curves.
Isv —social vulnerability indicator.
This indicator represents the portion of a region’s social vulnerability related to the percentage of
people who are potentially the most vulnerable to flood events, from a physical point of view. It is
related with people vulnerability to the hazard, represented by the velocity factor indicator (the product
of flow velocity and water depth) and how rapid velocities can drag a person with the flow [59]. Isv is
given by Equation (8).
Isv = a· (IVP )n1 ·(IVFv )n2 + b· (INP )n3 ·(IVFn )n4
h i h i
(8)

where

Ivp : indicator of vulnerable persons

Inp : indicator of non-vulnerable persons
IVFv : velocity factor indicator for vulnerable people
IVFn : velocity factor indicator for non-vulnerable people

The whole formulation of this indicator can be found in Rezende et al. (2018) [50].
Ivp and Inp —vulnerability of people sub-indicators.
Ivp represents the direct proportion of the population that is younger than 15 and older 60 years
of age, in relation to the total population. It represents people who are more prone to flooding
consequences. Inp is the complement of the Ivp .
IVF —velocity factor sub-indicator.
The velocity factor (VF) directly indicates the potential to drag people away during a flood
event. The normalisation of IVF considers previous studies on the stability of people when exposed
to water [60]. Based on this study, two risk classifications of the loss of stability were developed for
vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups, as shown in Table 1.
Water 2019, 11, 1485 10 of 28

Table 1. Classification of IVF according to classes of drag risk and related to the Velocity Factor VF.

Vulnerable People—V Non-Vulnerable People—NV

Risk VF IVFv Risk VF IVFn
Null 0.050 0.00 Null 0.000 0.00
Low 0.100 0.09 Low 0.300 0.09
Moderate 0.175 0.63 Moderate 0.500 0.63
High 0.250 1.00 High 0.700 1.00

The normalised formulations of IVFv and IVFn are given by Equations (9) and (10).

IVFv = 0.9743· ln(VF) + 2.3308 (9)

IVFn = 1.0554· ln(VF) + 1.3596 (10)

2.2.3. Sub-Index of Risk to System Functional Capacity (SiF )

This represents the system’s ability to continue providing part of its services during a flood event.
This subscript considers the mobility risk indicator, represented by the relationship between road
hierarchy and non-attendance by rail transport with the flooding event. This sub-index indicates
the impact of the flood on traffic and people. It also assesses the impact on rescue access through
the analysis of flooding of fire department resources and their surroundings, indicating potential
difficulties in carrying out emergency actions. The general formulation is given by Equation (11).

SiF = (IMR ·a) + (Ida ·b) (11)

Ida —aid access difficulty indicator.

This indirectly represents the difficulty of a given region to receive help from a specialised aid team.
In the present study, due to ready access to data, the Fire Department of Rio de Janeiro in the Canal
do Mangue catchment was used. Each facility was associated with an influence area, which can be
penalised when the flood reaches the position where the Fire Department is installed. The penalisation
considers the flood depth, representing the difficulty or even the impossibility of exiting the building.
IMR —mobility risk indicator.
The mobility risk indicator represents how much the transportation system is affected by a flood
event, assessing the potential impact on the traffic of cars and people mobility. For this, it uses a road
hierarchy indicator and a non-compliance indicator for rail transport, relating them to a permanence
factor of flooding, as a hazard indicator. IMR is given by Equation (12).

IMR = [(Irh ·a) + (Inrt ·b)]n1 ·[IPF ]n2 (12)

Irh —road hierarchy sub-indicator.

This indicator is given by the highest route hierarchy within the analysis area, according to the
values presented in Table 2. The information of this hierarchy comes from CET-Rio, an organ of the
Municipal Transport Department of Rio de Janeiro City.

Table 2. Normalisation of the road hierarchy indicator Irh .

Hierarchy Irh
1 1.00
2 0.94
3 0.77
4 0.50
5 0.11
Water 2019, 11, 1485 11 of 28

Inrt —non-rail transport service sub-indicator.

This evaluates the lack of availability of subways or train stations in a radius of 1000 m and 500 m,
indicating the places with the highest coverage of transport services, which would indirectly present
better possibilities for mobility during flooding events. Inrt is given by the complement of the rail
system offer indicator Irt , ranked according to the classification presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Classification of the Rail system offer indicator Irt .

Number of Rail Stations in a Radius of Total Number of

Class Irt
500 m 1000 m Rail Stations
1 0 0 0 0.00
2 0 1 1 0.21
3 1 0 1 0.34
4 0 2 2 0.44
5 1 1 2 0.51
6 2 0 2 0.57
7 0 3 3 0.62
8 1 2 3 0.66
9 2 1 3 0.70
10 3 0 3 0.74
11 0 4 4 0.77
12 1 3 4 0.80
13 2 2 4 0.82
14 3 1 4 0.85
15 0 5 5 0.87
16 1 4 5 0.89
17 2 3 5 0.91
18 3 2 5 0.93
19 0 6 6 0.95
20 1 5 6 0.96
21 2 4 6 0.98
22 3 3 6 1.00

IPF —permanence factor sub-indicator.

IPF is the hazard indicator relative to the permanence of flooding. This indicator indirectly assesses
the stormwater network’s ability to drain floods, evaluating the time that urban areas stay flooded.
It considers three classes: (i) water depths between 10 cm and 25 cm (T1); (ii) between 25 cm and 50 cm
(T2); and (iii) above 50 cm (T3). Each class is normalised according to a maximum time for which
the maximum impact of flooding could be reached. The definition of the maximum hazard time for
each class considers the relative impact for the urban system. Thus, for class T1, areas flooded for
three hours would have a high impact on the mobility of people, restricting their movements and
increasing the possibility of transmission of waterborne diseases. For class T2, with floods of up to
50 cm, sidewalks are surpassed and traffic can be affected, assuming that a 60-min period of flooding is
sufficient to result in a high negative impact. For class T3, a period of 30 min could have a significant
impact on traffic, with total disruption, in case of floods exceeding 50 cm in depth. IPF is calculated by
Equation (13).
IPF = (T1·a)·(T2·b)·(T3·c) (13)

Equations (14)–(16) show the normalisation of each term of the IPF . The weights considered in
this study aimed to prioritise the impact of higher water levels, considering the following values: a =
0.10; b = 0.22; and c = 0.68. These weights were originally proposed in the work of Zonensein [49].

T1 = 0.0056·t1 (14)

T2 = 0.0167·t2 (15)
Water 2019, 11, 1485 12 of 28

T1 = 0.0333·t3 (16)

with,

t1 : total duration of floods with water depths between 10 cm and 25 cm

t2 : total duration of floods with water depths between 25 cm and 50 cm
t3 : total duration of floods with water depths greater than 50 cm

2.3. A New Methodological Framework to Measure Urban Flood Resilience

This item presents in an organised and reproducible way for the logical sequence of the necessary
procedures to apply the tools to evaluate urban flood resilience, considering the new framework
proposed in this paper. It aims to provide a quick guide to facilitate the application of this methodology
in other basins.
The existing tools already provide useful information for applications, for example, in mapping
the results of specific sets of flood control interventions. However, a systemic overview and the
proper organisation of these tools are essential to promote a systemic approach to the process of FRM.
Therefore, the project should be oriented according to a risk logic, and not only “damages and losses
reduction” internalising the residual risk from potential future uncertainties.
To provide a comprehensive view of the proposed framework, a flowchart of the necessary steps to
assess the flood resilience in urban basins using the UFRI is presented in Figure 5. The following steps
describe the development of the resilience assessment proposed in this paper, according to the criterion
of future scenarios assessment, based on the use of a flood modelling process and UFRI mapping.
1. Watershed delimitation
Once the urban system to be evaluated has been established, the river basins that contribute to the
system must be physically defined.
2. Delimitation of the modelling domain
In this phase, the areas that will be considered for the detailed hydrodynamic modelling process
should be delimitated. If the modelling domain does not cover the whole basin, the boundary
conditions must be defined.
3. Delimitation of the interest domain
The domain of interest must cover the entire threatened urban system. This step is very important
and should be done with caution, since an incorrect definition of the limits of the domain of interest
can exclude strategic or vulnerable areas from the analysis, thereby distorting the results.
4. Determination of the modelling system
The application of the method proposed in this paper allows a resilience evaluation to be performed
in a concentrated way for the entire basin, providing a single value of resilience for the whole system.
However, the use of UFRI necessitates defining the hydrodynamic modelling tool’s needs. It should be
able to simulate flooding events considering the flow occurring both in the main channels and on the
urban plains, providing results of flooding in the whole urban space. For a better evaluation of the
system, the use of two-dimensional or quasi-2D modelling systems is recommended.
5. Definition of the modelling scenarios
The number of modelling scenarios will depend on the number of interventions sets to be
evaluated. Each scenario should represent, in current and future situations, the drainage system
conditions, the urban characteristics of the basin, and the hydrological events. The intersection of these
conditions determines the final scenarios to be simulated.
Water 2019, 11, 1485 13 of 28

6. Hydrological modelling
This step aims to estimate the design storms, as well as inflows to the modelling domain, which
will be used in the hydrodynamic modelling phase. The scale of evaluation, concerning critical events
to the urban watershed, should define the storm events.
7. Hydrodynamic modelling
Once the modelling tool and the simulation scenarios have been set, the database for hydrodynamic
modelling is created, considering the boundary conditions imposed by possible downstream restrictions
and flood hydrographs from upstream reaches. This step results in the responses of the hazard-related
parcels of flood events (water depths, flow velocities and flooding permanence) for each of the
simulation scenarios.
8. Socioeconomic and environmental information survey
This step can be carried out soon after the definition of the watershed area (step 1) or even after
the delimitation of the domain of interest (step 3), in order to reduce the amount of information to be
assessed, by limiting the survey area to that which will realistically be evaluated. Commonly, several
government agencies provide necessary information for this study step, such as income distribution,
population and built density, land use, road hierarchy, public services coverage, etc.
9. Constitution of independent indicators
Some of the proposed indicators that compose the UFRI depend only on social, economic and/or
environmental information, and do not suffer from variations in flood dynamics. Such indicators
are elaborated from the mapping of the socioeconomic and environmental information in the area of
interest, comprising part of the vulnerability of the region. If future scenarios include land use changes
or the implementation of adaptive measures in the urban system to increase resilience to floods, these
indicators may also need to be revised.
10. Constitution of the dependent indicators
Beyond the flood hazard indicators themselves, which refer to the maximum flooding depth,
maximum flow velocity and flooding permanence, there is also a series of socioeconomic indicators
that vary according to the flooding response. Thus, these flood-dependent indicators, representing
both the hazards and the associated vulnerability, are composed after running the simulation scenarios,
which will provide the information necessary to complement the calculations.
11. Calculation of flood risk sub-indexes
After the construction of all the independent and dependent indicators, it is possible to calculate
the subindexes of flood risk, which are divided into the three groups that relate to the resilience of
a system: (i) capacity to resist; (ii) ability to recover; and (iii) ability to maintain operations, that is,
the ability to remain functional.
12. Mapping the urban flood resilience index
From the flood risk sub-indexes, the Urban Flood Resilience Index can be mapped in the domain
of interest for each simulation scenario, considering the return period of the storm and the conditions
of the drainage system and the urban patterns. In this step, the partial UFRI maps, which represent
resilience to floods, are drawn from a static point of view, as a direct response to a given set of
hydrological events.
13. Evaluation of the urban resilience
Flood resilience must assume a multi-temporal characteristic, in which the response of the urban
system involves the occurrence of several possible events, internalising the residual risk to the risk
evaluation and management process, either by incorporating future scenarios with changes in the
Water 2019, 11, 1485 14 of 28

variables of hazard or vulnerability, or by the evaluation of hydrological events superior to the design
storm. In this paper, one evaluation method is addressed, named here future scenarios criterion. In this
evaluation approach, the occurrence of an intense hydrological event (with a pre-defined return period)
in an adverse future scenario is considered, comparing the consequent UFRI results with the current
scenario. From the mapping of the UFRI in each scenario (current and future) for the reference events,
the average values of the UFRI in the urban system are calculated. The average UFRI results for each
scenario are embedded in a resilience scale calculus, which will provide a numerical value to support
the evaluation of the performance of urban interventions for flood mitigation, considering potential
future stresses to the system. The next item provides more details about this proposed13method.
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 28

Watershed delimitation Flood modelling

Delimitation of the
UFRI mapping modelling domain

Socioeconomic and
Delimitation of the
environmental information
interest domain
survey

Determination of the
modelling system

Constitution of Definition of the Doing nothing

independent indicators modelling scenarios current
future

Hydrological modelling Design alternatives

. Project 1
current
Constitution of
Hydrodynamic modelling future
the dependent indicators
. Project 2
current
Calculation of future
flood risk sub-indexes ...
. Project n
current
Mapping the urban flood
resilience index

Evaluation of the urban flood resilience of design scenarios

Scenarios
Definition of the Calculation of average UFRI
current and future
reference RP for the urban watershed

Urban Flood Resilience final value for

watershed in design alternative 1

Urban Flood Resilience final value for Application of the aFResI

watershed in design alternative 2 for each design alternatives

Urban Flood Resilience final value for

watershed in design alternative n

Figure 5. Flowchart of procedures for estimating flood resilience in urban basins using UFRI.
Figure 5. Flowchart of procedures for estimating flood resilience in urban basins using UFRI.

1. Watershed delimitation
Once the urban system to be evaluated has been established, the river basins that contribute to
the system must be physically defined.
Water 2019, 11, 1485 15 of 28

2.4. Future Scenarios Criterion

Male [61] defines resilient infrastructures as “those systems of assets that will be able to survive
and perform well in an increasingly uncertain future”. Considering this statement, the methodology
proposed by Miguez & Vérol [28], which considers the analysis of future scenarios, is applied to assess
the resilience of urban drainage systems to floods. In this method, the flood resilience of a basin is
measured on a scale that evaluates the efficiency of a set of urban interventions to mitigate floods and
the associated loss of efficiency when facing a future scenario of changes in land use patterns or climate
conditions, based on the decrease of flood risk protection. To complete this analysis, the future risk
of doing nothing is also estimated and compared with the behaviour of a set of future interventions.
The method is better explained on the following.
In addition to the probability of occurrence of events of greater magnitude than that of the design
event, when the actions to reduce flood risks are defined, there are uncertainties regarding the potential
disturbance in the current hydrological patterns related to the climate change. Most studies comprising
future assessments of the urban system operations consider the impacts of climate change using the
Representative Concentration Pathway RCP-4.5 scenario, which represents a medium impact scenario,
with a temperature increase between 0.9 and 2.0 ◦ C for the year of 2040 [62]. When considering the
end of the century, this increase may reach up to 6 ◦ C [63].
Considering that the variation found in precipitation rates has an approximately linear behaviour
in relation to the atmospheric temperature variation [64], estimates of the possible impacts of global
climate change on intense rainfall regimes indicate a probability of increases of between 8% and 24% in
precipitation volume.
In the case of coastal cities, there are also predictions of changes in mean sea levels (MSL),
which could have significant impacts on the drainage systems of these regions. Global projections
estimate potential increases of MSL of between 0.26 m and 0.55 m by the year 2100 in an optimistic
scenario, and of between 0.45 m and 0.82 m in a more pessimistic one [65]. For Brazil, it is estimated
that the MSL could behave similarly to these estimates [66], with a minimum increase of about
0.50 m [67]. Such changes will stress the operations of drainage networks based on the current criteria
of hydrological and hydraulic standards, which do not consider the potential impacts of climate change.
The method to estimate flood resilience (FResI) proposed by Miguez [28] is here adapted for use
with the UFRI as input, allowing assessments to be made of urban flood resilience considering the
capacity to absorb potential future impacts. The original formulation used the FRI, that computes
flood characteristics and possible consequences, using flood depths, flow velocities, flooding duration,
affected dwellings, income, sanitation conditions and road hierarchies. The original FResI calculated a
mean value of resilience to the entire watershed, comparing the variation of a flood risk index over time,
assuming one current and one future condition [28], and considering that resilience was greater as the
risk was lower—resilience was considered to work against risk materialisation.
The aFResI proposed in this paper is given directly by the resilience index and not with the
application of a flood risk index, as proposed in the original paper. The adapted method uses the same
mathematical construction, but it has incorporated a weight system to the two parcels that compose
the aFResI, the loss of efficiency of the solution in a future situation (P1) and the efficiency of the solution in the
future situation (P2), presented in the form of Equation (17).

aFResI = P1a ·P2b (17)

aFResI = adapted resilience index, with values between 0 e 1

P1 = parcel 1, which measures the loss of efficiency of the solution proposed in a future situation
when compared to the present.
P2 = parcel 2, which measures the efficiency of the solution in the future situation, relating the
behaviour of the system with and without the proposed set of measures in the future, subjected to the
stressing conditions considered.
Water 2019, 11, 1485 16 of 28

a e b = parcels weights
The parcel 1 (P1) is calculated by the subtraction of value 1 (100% of efficiency maintained) from
the project UFRI in the present situation minus the project UFRI in the future situation divided by
project UFRI in the present situation. Equation (18) presents the components of P1.
 
Present − UFRIFuture
UFRIProject Projetc
P1 = 1 − Present
(18)
UFRIProject

Parcel 2 (P2) represents UFRI considering a future with the implementation of the proposed
project compared with doing nothing. It is calculated by the relationship between UFRI with project
minus UFRI for doing nothing (no actions), both in the future situation, divided by UFRI with the
project implementation in the future situation. P2 is calculated by Equation (19).

Future − UFRIFuture
UFRIProject No actions
P2 = Future
(19)
UFRIProject

The future scenario examined in this study considers a medium impact scenario of climate change,
with an increase of 0.50m on MSL and a 16% increment in precipitation intensity.

2.5. Case Study: Canal Do Mangue Catchment

The Canal do Mangue catchment (Figure 6) was chosen as a case study to exemplify the discussions
in this work. This catchment is located in the northern part of the city of Rio de Janeiro, covering parts
of downtown and the traditional neighbourhoods of Tijuca, Vila Isabel, Maracanã, Rio Comprido,
Andaraí and Grajaú. Important landmarks are located at Canal do Mangue catchment, as the Maracanã
Stadium, the Imperium Museum and the old railway station of Leopoldina. It drains a total area of
around 45 km2 , presenting very steep headwater hills and a large lowland limited by the Guanabara
Bay. Part of the lowlands is the result of landfills over wetlands and seashore areas in the Guanabara
Bay, which were installed during the Portuguese imperial period for sanitation purposes and urban
growth. This geomorphological pattern favours flooding at downstream plains, where the major part
of the population is settled.
The catchment covers a highly urbanised area with consolidated occupation, and is one of the
areas which is most susceptible to flooding in Rio de Janeiro. Part of the urban occupation, however,
refers to informal substandard occupations (the “favelas”). In this kind of situation (dense occupation,
high runoff generation and uncontrolled flows), structural measures based on sustainable urban
drainage techniques are required within the compensatory measures approach, in a concept expressed
by Baptista et al. [68]. In recent decades, we have been noticing considerable evolution in urban
stormwater management concepts, covering aspects from low impact development to water sensitive
urban design (see Fletcher et al., 2015). All approaches converge upon a strategy for urban stormwater
management that favours source control measures distributed over the watershed, minimising
urbanisation impacts in water cycle, comprising integrated solutions within urban landscape [69] and
recovering part of the original hydrological functions.
the Maracanã Stadium, the Imperium Museum and the old railway station of Leopoldina. It drains a
total area of around 45 km², presenting very steep headwater hills and a large lowland limited by the
Guanabara Bay. Part of the lowlands is the result of landfills over wetlands and seashore areas in the
Guanabara Bay, which were installed during the Portuguese imperial period for sanitation purposes
and
Waterurban growth.
2019, 11, 1485 This geomorphological pattern favours flooding at downstream plains, where the
17 of 28
major part of the population is settled.

Figure 6. Localisation
Localisation of
of Canal
Canal do
do Mangue
Mangue catchment.

2.6. Simulation
The catchment Scenarios
covers a highly urbanised area with consolidated occupation, and is one of the
areasThe
which is most susceptible
use of simulation scenariosto flooding
can providein Rio de Janeiro.
useful Parttoofbasin
responses the urban occupation,
to pre-defined however,
storm events,
refers to informal
considering substandard
possible occupations
alternatives to flood risk (thecontrol
“favelas”).
by In this kind ofinterventions
introducing situation (dense occupation,
in the drainage
high
system runoff
or bygeneration
adapting urbanand uncontrolled
configuration.flows), structural measures based on sustainable urban
drainage techniques are required
In this way, the present research within
considers the the
compensatory measures
hypothesis that an urbanapproach, in a concept
system supported by
expressed by Baptista et al. [68]. In recent decades, we have been noticing considerable
smaller stormwater detention measures, distributed on the watershed, could offer greater resilience evolution in
urban stormwater management concepts, covering aspects from low impact
to flooding than that presented by systems with large and concentrated flood control structures. development to water
sensitive urban design
The evaluation of this (see Fletcherwas
hypothesis et al.,carried
2015). out
All approaches
with the use converge upon a strategy
of the proposed methodforandurban
the
stormwater management that favours source control measures distributed
simulation of one baseline situation and two project alternatives, with both being supported by over the watershed,
minimising
mathematicalurbanisation
modelling. The impacts in water
proposed method cycle,
aimscomprising integrated solutions
to support decision-making within
process, urbana
providing
landscape [69] and
tool to evaluate andrecovering part of design
compare multiple the original hydrological
approaches functions.
and different sets of interventions. Therefore,
the proposed index was constructed to incorporate not only drainage system aspects, but also
socioeconomic variables. This characteristic allows evaluations to be carried out of both interventions
directly in the drainage network (flood control measures) and adaptation strategies to the urban
environment, attempting to identify for vulnerability reductions.
In this paper, due to the case study comprises an already highly urbanised area, only flood
control measures were considered in FSC application. This is therefore not a limitation of the proposal.
Data availability, characteristics of the study area and modeller decisions will define the analysis
aspect. The case study is used as an example to confirm the usability of the tool and the proposed
 Water 2019, 11, 1485 18 of 28

framework. Therefore, the proposed scenarios aim to analyse the response of the drainage system
to hydrological events simulating present and future conditions, considering the “doing nothing”
alternative and two different design alternatives to the drainage system: C0—without interventions;
C1—with concentrated interventions; C2—with distributed interventions.
The first condition without interventions (C0) aims to provide a baseline, allowing later
comparisons with the project alternatives. It considers the hydraulic conditions of the urban drainage
system without any measures being taken.
Then, the mathematical model is adapted to introduce large stormwater detention tanks (C1)
to store part of the discharge of the main channels, reducing the peak flow. This alternative aims to
reduce the hydraulic overload in some channel reaches with low flow capacity.
Finally, the model is adapted to introduce smaller detention structures (C2), which are distributed
throughout the basin. These structures are located at the bottom of hillsides and on urban occupied
plains, prioritising public spaces such as squares, gardens and parking lots, integrating drainage
solutions into the urban open space system.
The evaluation of a more distributed set of interventions assumes a global tendency of urban
stormwater management which tries to deal with flood events in a more sustainable way. As concluded
by Zhang et al. [48], “the combination of conventional and decentralised stormwater management
systems, which not only protect environmental quality but also promote water and energy savings,
will prove to be the most practical solution for most cities in the future”. Therefore, the case study
contributes to reinforcing the advantages of adopting distributed measures to face stormwater issues.
The simulation scenarios include a combination of hydrological events with urban system
conditions. The hydrological scenarios can represent probabilities of occurrence (return periods)
or future changes in climate behaviour. The urban system conditions can represent land uses and
adaptations measures in drainage networks.
A climate scenario with MSL elevation and an increase in the rainfall volume reproduces
the potential adversity in the Future Scenarios Criterion (FSC), which was applied in this study.
This configuration aims to test the behaviour of the drainage system with the two proposed alternatives
of intervention in a possible scenario of climate change. Note that this choice reflects a possible future
stressing factor to the watershed, considering that it already presents dense occupation and problems
related
Water with
2019, 11, unplanned
x FOR PEER REVIEWland use and uncontrolled urban growth, including the presence of19slums of 28 in
the hilly areas.
TheThe
application of the
application FSC
of the forfor
FSC thethe
analysis
analysisofofthe
theurban
urbanflood
floodresilience
resilience in
in this
this study considers
considers the
the rainfall
rainfallevent
eventwith
witha 25-year
a 25-year
RP,RP, regarding
regarding the Brazilian
the Brazilian national
national standards
standards used
used for for major
major drainage
drainage
network network assessments
assessments [70].
[70]. This This configuration
configuration produces produces six simulation
six simulation scenarios,
scenarios, as shownasin
shown
Figure 7.
in Figure 7.

C0 Current scenario of
climate behaviour
C1 RP25

Future scenario of
C2 climate change

Drainage Return period (RP) of Future scenario

system the hydrological event of climate

Figure 7. Representation
Figure scheme
7. Representation of the
scheme simulation
of the scenarios.
simulation scenarios.

3. Results and Discussion

The resilience, as addressed in the technical discussion of this paper, is part of the risk
management acting as a counterpoint to the fragilities of the urban system in the face of potential
flood impacts. An estimation of the final flood resilience of the watershed is then carried out using
the future scenarios criterion, which allows assessments to be made of flood control scenarios from a
future impact perspective. Flood resilience mapping using the UFRI and flood resilience estimated
by aFResI considering two different flood control projects are presented in the following items.
Water 2019, 11, 1485 19 of 28

3. Results and Discussion

The resilience, as addressed in the technical discussion of this paper, is part of the risk management
acting as a counterpoint to the fragilities of the urban system in the face of potential flood impacts.
An estimation of the final flood resilience of the watershed is then carried out using the future
scenarios criterion, which allows assessments to be made of flood control scenarios from a future
impact perspective. Flood resilience mapping using the UFRI and flood resilience estimated by aFResI
considering two different flood control projects are presented in the following items.
This research explores an alternative path for the evaluation of flood risk reduction plans, assuming
the inverse logic of the simple damage reduction objective objective and, consequently, creating an
approach focused on increasing the resilience to floods of the urban system.
The planning of urban interventions for damage reduction based on traditional flood risk
management leads to the proposition of “flood control” measures, usually with large structural
solutions, which, initially provide feasible hydraulic results for the system, considering a hydrological
event of reference. However, by internalising the residual risk, concentrating solutions in large
structures can reduce the system’s resilience, putting it at risk of uncertainties that can stress defensive
measures, such as the occurrence of larger events, the lack of drainage maintenance, variations in the
pattern of urbanisation or future changes in climatic patterns.
On the other hand, the resilience-based approach prioritises adaptive measures that seek to
harmonise the relationship between the city and the flood cycle, since the very concept of resilience
relies not only on the system’s responsiveness, but also on its ability to absorb and coexist with the
negative impacts of floods.
In this work, the applicability tests for the proposed framework were undertaken to evaluate the
potential loss of efficiency considering two design solutions for drainage system, taking into account
the impacts of climate changes. This choice was suited to the case studied, since the Canal do Mangue
watershed is already a consolidated urban area and there are few possibilities for urban changes. In this
case, climate change was assumed as a future stressing condition. The results showed the advantages
of adopting distributed measures which could better deal with increments in the runoff. In this section,
only the final results are presented and discussed, as the main goal of this research is not to discuss in
detail the formulation of the particular terms of the index, but to validate the framework as a whole.

3.1. Application of the UFRI in the Present

The spatial results of the UFRI application show the great response of the system after the
implementation of the flood control measures for both project scenarios, as shown in Figure 8.
UFRI mapping for Scenario 0 (C0) shows the current situation of the basin, with extensive low resilience
areas. The difference between project scenarios (C1 and C2) shows the positive effect of more distributed
measures over the basin, proposed on Scenario 2 (C2), resulting in a more spatialised impact of flooding
reduction and, as a consequence, of increased resilience.
The permanence of several areas with low and moderate resilience (UFRI < 0.5) indicates the high
criticality of flood problems in the Canal do Mangue catchment. Indeed, the basin suffers from frequent
flooding events that cause huge damage and losses to the city. Most of these recurrent problems occur
as a result of urban drainage system inefficiency and, at a lower frequency, because of the hydraulic
incapacity of the main channels.
Due to its location in a flat urban area, the drainage system already presents natural flow
difficulties imposed by physiographic conditions. Therefore, action is necessary to organise the
superficial water flows produced by urban areas. The use of permeable pavements and distributed
stormwater reservoirs may offer a solution, prioritising rainwater storage which mimics the basin’s
natural behaviour. The result of Scenario 2 (C2) shows the impact of the adoption of distributed
measures, reducing shallower and persistent floods.
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 28

mapping for Scenario 0 (C0) shows the current situation of the basin, with extensive low resilience
areas. The difference between project scenarios (C1 and C2) shows the positive effect of more
distributed
Water 2019, 11, measures
1485 over the basin, proposed on Scenario 2 (C2), resulting in a more spatialised
20 of 28
impact of flooding reduction and, as a consequence, of increased resilience.

Figure
Figure 8. Spatialisation
Spatialisation of
of the
the UFRI
UFRI doing
doing nothing
nothing (C0)
(C0) and
and with concentrated
concentrated (C1)
(C1) and distributed
distributed
(C2) interventions. Results
Results from
from aa 25-year
25-year RP event.

A comparative
The permanenceevaluation
of severalofareas
mapping
with the
lowfinal
and results
moderateof UFRI in Canal
resilience do Mangue
(UFRI catchment
< 0.5) indicates the
can be performed by analysing the potential of reducing areas with low resilience and
high criticality of flood problems in the Canal do Mangue catchment. Indeed, the basin suffers from increasing areas
with highflooding
frequent resilience. In order
events that to illustrate
cause huge this analysis,
damage and the areas
losses to in
thedifferent resilience
city. Most ranges
of these were
recurrent
accountedoccur
problems by classes, as shown
as a result in the
of urban UFRI scale
drainage presented
system in Table
inefficiency and,4. at a lower frequency, because
of the hydraulic incapacity of the main channels.
Due to its location in a flat urban Table 4. Resilience
area, classes.system already presents natural flow
the drainage
difficulties imposed by physiographic conditions.UFRI
Resilience
Therefore,
Values
action is necessary to organise the
superficial water flows produced by urban areas. The use of permeable pavements and distributed
Very low 0.00–0.25
stormwater reservoirs may offer a solution, prioritising rainwater storage which mimics the basin’s
Low 0.25–0.49
natural behaviour. The result of Scenario 2 (C2) shows
Moderate the impact of the adoption of distributed
0.50–0.69
measures, reducing shallower and persistent High floods. 0.70–0.89
A comparative evaluation of mapping Very high 0.90–1.00
the final results of UFRI in Canal do Mangue catchment
can be performed by analysing the potential of reducing areas with low resilience and increasing
areasFrom
with this
highclassification,
resilience. Inthe
order to mapped
areas illustratewithin
this analysis,
each of the areasresilience
the five in different resilience
classes ranges
were counted
were accounted by classes, as shown in the UFRI scale presented in Table 4.
for each simulation scenario, considering the UFRI mapping resulting from the occurrence of a storm
event of 25-year RP. This evaluation makes it possible to observe an important impact of the project
alternatives in the reduction of areas Table
with 4. Resilience
very classes.and in the increase of areas with high
low resilience
and very high resilience. The graphic in Figure 9 shows the distribution of the resilience classes in the
percentage of the area, considering the domain of interest.
 From this classification, the areas mapped within each of the five resilience classes were counted
for each simulation scenario, considering the UFRI mapping resulting from the occurrence of a storm
event of 25-year RP. This evaluation makes it possible to observe an important impact of the project
alternatives in the reduction of areas with very low resilience and in the increase of areas with high and
very high resilience. The graphic in Figure 9 shows the distribution of the resilience classes in the
Water 2019, 11, 1485 21 of 28
percentage of the area, considering the domain of interest.

Figure 9.
Figure Distribution of
9. Distribution of resilience
resilience classes
classes in
in the
the percentage
percentage of
of the
the area
area of
of the
the domain
domain of
of interest.
interest.

The
The adoption
adoption ofof distributed
distributed measures
measures (C2)
(C2) allowed
allowed us
us to
to increase
increase in
in areas
areas classified with very
classified with very
high resilience by 41%, while the very low resilient
high resilience by 41%, while the very low resilient areas were reduced by 87%. When considering the
areas were reduced by 87%. When considering the
concentrated
concentrated measures
measures (C1), the very
(C1), the very high
high resilient
resilient areas
areas increased
increased by
by 33%,
33%, while
while those
those classified
classified with
with
very
very low
low resilience
resilience were
were reduced
reduced byby 77%.
77%.
3.2. Application of the Future Scenarios Criterion—FSC
3.2. Application of the Future Scenarios Criterion—FSC
The evaluation of urban flood resilience based on the FSC considers the value of the UFRI
The evaluation of urban flood resilience based on the FSC considers the value of the UFRI
integrated for the entire urban basin. This value is calculated through the aFResI Equations, adapted
integrated for the entire urban basin. This value is calculated through the aFResI Equations, adapted
from Miguez & Veról [28]. The average values of UFRI are for each simulated scenario (C0, C1 and C2),
from Miguez & Veról [28]. The average values of UFRI are for each simulated scenario (C0, C1 e C2),
in the present and in the future.
in the present and in the future.
The integrated UFRI of the watershed is represented by its average value, calculated by the
The integrated UFRI of the watershed is represented by its average value, calculated by the area-
area-weighted average, applied to all cells of the domain of interest. Table 5 shows the average value of
weighted average, applied to all cells of the domain of interest. Table 5 shows the average value of
UFRI for each scenario, before and after the implementation of flood control measures, and considering
UFRI for each scenario, before and after the implementation of flood control measures, and
the current climate conditions and potential climate change in a future scenario, reflected in the MSL
considering the current climate conditions and potential climate change in a future scenario, reflected
rise and the increase of stormwater intensity.
in the MSL rise and the increase of stormwater intensity.
Table 5. Average values of UFRI for the Canal do Mangue catchment, under current and future climate
conditions, for each simulated scenario (C0, C1 and C2).

UFRI
Alternatives
Current Future
C0—doing nothing 0.65 0.60
C1—concentrated interventions 0.73 0.68
C2—distributed interventions 0.78 0.73

These values are applied in the aFResI Equations to calculate the urban flood resilience, considering
future changes in hazard behaviour (flooding characteristics, as water depth, flow velocity and flooding
permanence). Once these characteristics result both from the storms, which cause superficial flows,
and from the tide, which causes resistance to stormwater flows, the potential impacts of climate change
can affect the whole drainage system.
The results of the application of aFResI are presented in Equations (20)–(22) for scenario C1
(concentrated interventions), and in Equations (23)–(25) for scenario C2 (distributed interventions).
Water 2019, 11, 1485 22 of 28

• aFResI for Scenario C1—concentrated interventions:

 
Present − UFRIFuture
UFRIProject Project (0.73 − 0.68)
P1 = 1 − Present
= 1− = 0.93 (20)
UFRIProject 0.73

Future − UFRIFuture
UFRIProject No actions 0.68 − 0.60
P2 = Future
= = 0.12 (21)
UFRIProject 0.68

aFResIC1 = P1a ·P2b = 0.930.5 ·0.10.5 = 0.33 (22)

• aFResI for Scenario C2—distributed interventions:

 
Present − UFRIFuture
UFRIProject Project (0.78 − 0.73)
P1 = 1 − Present
= 1− = 0.94 (23)
UFRIProject 0.78

Future − UFRIFuture
UFRIProject No actions 0.73 − 0.60
P2 = Future
= = 0.18 (24)
UFRIProject 0.73

aFResIC2 = P1a ·P2b = 0.940.5 ·0.180.5 = 0.41 (25)

The results show an advantage to the second set of interventions, prioritising distributed measures.
The C2 was 24% more resilient. The weights were chosen equally for both parcels of the aFResI equation,
but this was just an arbitrary choice. In fact, the weights definition process should be determined by
decision makers according to their perceptions of the watershed characteristics and the urban pattern
occupation. For example, if the decision maker is mainly worried about future challenges, P2 may
receive a higher weight. In contrast, if the main worry is the design of a system that is capable of
retaining its efficiency, P1 will receive greater weight. In this case study, the bigger the weight of the P2
parcel (weight b), the higher the relative increment in resilience achieved by the implementation of
designed measures in C2. This behaviour is visualised in Figure 10, which presents the difference in
aFResI for both intervention alternatives, considering three different criteria for the weighting process.
In these examples, aFResI is 35% greater when P2 has a higher weighted value (0.75), and only 11%
Water 2019,
greater in11,
thex FOR
casePEER REVIEW
where the P2 weight is lower (0.25). 23 of 28

Figure 10.
Figure Adapted Flood
10. Adapted Flood Resilience
Resilience Index
Index (aFResI)
(aFResI) of
of Canal
Canal do
do Mangue
Mangue catchment, considering
catchment, considering
different weighting
different weighting for
for the
the Equations
Equations parcels.
parcels.

In this case study, the partial results were able to show the best option, but it is not expected
4. Conclusions
that the results will always be so clear. Note that the case compared distributed measures against
moreInconcentrated
complex systems like However,
measures. cities interacting and being
both solutions affected
involved by waterstorage
stormwater dynamics, several
propositions.
interventions in different combinations can be “good solutions” to reduce potential damages
If the design scenario had also considered an increase in channels dimensions, this type of measurefrom
flood events. However, what does a good solution mean? Is it the best option today? Or perhaps it
can be not the best today, but the one that can better resist future challenges? Thus, it’s necessary to
improve the available tools for supporting the design process, and it would be useful to have an
assessing method which is capable of assisting decision makers to prioritise resilience actions, taking
into account the fact that resilience is a key feature in a changing (and uncertain) future.
Water 2019, 11, 1485 23 of 28

would probably lead to efficient results in the present, but to much less resilient results in the future,
since overflows would occur almost freely due to greater future discharges. In this way, we could
obtain good present results, albeit overshadowed by a greater loss in the functional capacity in the
future, which could produce some variations in the parcel results.

4. Conclusions
In complex systems like cities interacting and being affected by water dynamics, several
interventions in different combinations can be “good solutions” to reduce potential damages from
flood events. However, what does a good solution mean? Is it the best option today? Or perhaps it
can be not the best today, but the one that can better resist future challenges? Thus, it’s necessary
to improve the available tools for supporting the design process, and it would be useful to have an
assessing method which is capable of assisting decision makers to prioritise resilience actions, taking
into account the fact that resilience is a key feature in a changing (and uncertain) future.
This paper aimed to propose an alternative pathway to evaluate design options for urban flood
control, assessing resilience in quantitative terms. In this way, it presented a methodological framework
to assess and consider flood resilience in urban watershed planning and design through the application
of the Urban Flood Resilience Index (UFRI) and the Future Scenarios Criterion (FCS). The proposed
method shifts the traditional approach of simply reducing floods or flood losses by creating a framework
which is focused on assessing flood resilience in urban systems, considering the results over time.
The resilience-based approach is also capable of prioritising the use of adaptive measures in the
design process, aiming to reconcile city functions and flood events. Therefore, the resilience concept
motivates the search for solutions which make cities more prepared to live with floods, even in stressing
conditions, as in scenarios of climate change. Although the UFRI is not capable of directly measuring
human risk perception, the proposed framework can be used to evaluate potential urban development
booms in flood-prone areas resulting from the reduction of flood frequency as a consequence of flood
control investments. In this way, false risk perception can be properly addressed in urban planning
when structural flood measures are being considered.
The UFRI allowed the resilience values on the watershed to be spatialised. On the other hand,
the Future Scenarios Criteria were able to present integrated results on resilience variation, from present
to future conditions, for different design alternatives, considering climate change effects or unplanned
urbanisation scenarios, for example.
In particular, a case study was developed and presented to illustrate the methodology, using
the Canal do Mangue watershed in Rio de Janeiro/Brazil, as an example. This study considered two
possible design alternatives for flood control: one with concentrated and the other with distributed
measures. The proposed framework worked as expected, allowing comparisons to be made between
the various options, and showing the advantages of adopting distributed measures over the watershed,
which was reflected in a resilience value that was 24% higher compared to the results obtained for the
set of concentrated solutions. The specific result refers to a choice of equal weights in the formulation.
This is just one of the possible results, and decision makers are free to revise the distribution of the
weights from case to case, as necessary.
By providing one integrated resilience value to the entire basin, the FSC criterion allowed
comparisons to be easily made between the proposed interventions, considering its adaptive capacity in
the face of future uncertainties. However, this integrated result composes one of the main contributions
of this research. The spatialised resilience maps can be used to improve each design alternative,
identifying the critical areas. It can be also useful not only to assess flood control projects, but also
actions in the urban landscape. If a set of urban design measures are adopted, including urban zoning,
restricting or limiting occupation in fragile flood-prone areas, or defining minimum standards to
flood-proof buildings, these actions can be evaluated within the proposed framework.
Despite its limitation, i.e., mainly in representing human behaviour aspects of resilience, the present
study aims to contribute to a more robust flood resilience assessment in urban catchments. The indicator
Water 2019, 11, 1485 24 of 28

formulations and index methodological steps were proposed and explained in the present study,
aiming to provide a replicable framework for tests, comparative studies and urban planning.
Therefore, the resilience approach can be used as a supporting tool for the hierarchising of a varied
set of interventions and for defining the greatest positive impacts on complex city system behaviour. In a
more comprehensive way, the proposed framework goes towards the ecosystem evaluation principle,
in which the ability of a system to withstand the impacts of anthropic modifications is evaluated.
In future, the research will assess the applicability of the framework in non-occupied areas
of growing cities, in order to provide an evaluation method for planning urban development.
The application of the framework should be able to provide decision-making processes with predicted
responses of the watershed to flooding events, given a set of potential land uses and urban patterns.
The expected result is to prove the applicability of this framework in urban planning. The continued
application of the framework, especially in regions that are suffering occupation pressure, will be
fundamental in addressing the key challenge highlighted by Keating et al. [39]: “if resilience cannot be
empirically verified, how can we know we are measuring actual resilience?”. We hope that the present
findings will allow improvements to be made, both in sustainable urban planning and in the flood
resilience measurement framework itself.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, O.M.R. and M.G.M.; Data curation, O.M.R.; Formal analysis, O.M.R.
and F.M.M.; Investigation, O.M.R.; Methodology, O.M.R. and M.G.M.; Resources, A.N.H.; Supervision, A.N.H.
and M.G.M.; Visualisation, F.M.M.; Writing—original draft, O.M.R.; Writing—review & editing, A.N.H. and
M.G.M.
Funding: This research was funded by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil
(CAPES) (Finance Code 001) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to acknowledge the administrative support provided by the Programa
de Engenharia Ambiental of UFRJ (PEA-POLI/EQ—UFRJ) and Programa de Engenharia Civil of UFRJ
(PEC-COPPE/UFRJ) and the technical support provided by Aquafluxus Water Resources Environmental Consulting.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
aFResI Adapted Flood Resilience Index
BMPs Best Management Practices
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
FResI Flood Resilience Index
FRI Flood Risk Index
FRM Flood Risk Management
FSC Future Scenarios Criterion
GI Green Infrastructure
LID Low Impact Development (LID)
MODCEL Urban Flow Cell Model, in Portuguese, Modelo de Células de Escoamento
MSL Mean Sea Level
RP Return Period
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
SES Social-ecological system
SuDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
UFRI Urban Flood Resilience Risk
WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design
Water 2019, 11, 1485 25 of 28

References
1. Sörensen, J.; Persson, A.; Sternudd, C.; Aspegren, H.; Nilsson, J.; Nordström, J.; Jönsson, K.; Mottaghi, M.;
Becker, P.; Pilesjö, P.; et al. Re-Thinking Urban Flood Management—Time for a Regime Shift. Water 2016,
8, 332. [CrossRef]
2. Driessen, P.; Hegger, D.; Kundzewicz, Z.; van Rijswick, H.; Crabbé, A.; Larrue, C.; Matczak, P.; Pettersson, M.;
Priest, S.; Suykens, C.; et al. Governance Strategies for Improving Flood Resilience in the Face of Climate
Change. Water 2018, 10, 1595. [CrossRef]
3. Brown, R.R.; Keath, N.; Wong, T.H.F. Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future
regimes. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 847–855. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Sayers, P.; Yuanyuan, L.; Galloway, G.; Penning-Rowsell, E.; Fuxin, S.; Kang, W.; Yiwei, C.; Le Quesne, T.
Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach; UNESCO: Pairs, France, 2013; ISBN 9789230011598.
5. Nascimento, N.O.; Ellis, J.B.; Baptista, M.B.; Deutsch, J.-C. Using detention basins: operational experience
and lessons. Urban Water 1999, 1, 113–124. [CrossRef]
6. UNISDR. Economic Losses, Poverty & Disasters—1998–2017; Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of
Disasters & UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Genebra, Switzerland, 2017.
7. Zevenbergen, C.; Fu, D.; Pathirana, A. Transitioning to Sponge Cities: Challenges and Opportunities to
Address Urban Water Problems in China. Water 2018, 10, 1230. [CrossRef]
8. Fletcher, T.D.; Shuster, W.; Hunt, W.F.; Ashley, R.; Butler, D.; Arthur, S.; Trowsdale, S.; Barraud, S.;
Semadeni-Davies, A.; Bertrand-Krajewski, J.L.; et al. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more—The evolution
and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J. 2015, 12, 525–542. [CrossRef]
9. Barría, P.; Cruzat, M.L.; Cienfuegos, R.; Gironás, J.; Eucariaza, C.; Bonilla, C.; Moris, R.; Ledezma, C.;
Guerra, M.; Rodríguez, R.; et al. From Multi-Risk Evaluation to Resilience Planning: The Case of Central
Chilean Coastal Cities. Water 2019, 1–24. [CrossRef]
10. Kaykhosravi, S.; Khan, U.; Jadidi, A. A Comprehensive Review of Low Impact Development Models for
Research, Conceptual, Preliminary and Detailed Design Applications. Water 2018, 10, 1541. [CrossRef]
11. Sharma, A.K.; Pezzaniti, D.; Myers, B.; Cook, S.; Tjandraatmadja, G.; Chacko, P.; Chavoshi, S.; Kemp, D.;
Leonard, R.; Koth, B.; et al. Water sensitive urban design: An investigation of current systems, implementation
drivers, community perceptions and potential to supplement urban water services. Water 2016, 8, 272. [CrossRef]
12. Holman-Dodds, J.K.; Bradley, A.A.; Potter, K.W. Evaluation of hydrologic benefits of infiltration based urban
storm water management. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2003, 39, 205–215. [CrossRef]
13. Dierkes, C.; Göbel, P.; Benze, W.; Wells, J. Next Generation Water Sensitive Stormwater Management
Techniques. In Proceedings of the Second national conference on water sensitive urban design,
Brisbane, Australia, 2–4 September 2000.
14. Swan, A.; Stovin, V.R.; Saul, A.J.; Walker, N. Modelling SUDS with deterministic urban drainage models.
In Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on Sustainability Drainage, Coventry University, Coventry, UK,
18–19 June 2001.
15. Swan, A. How increased urbanisation has induced flooding problems in the UK: A lesson for African cities?
Phys. Chem. Earth 2010, 35, 643–647. [CrossRef]
16. Morita, M. Flood risk impact factor for comparatively evaluating the main causes that contribute to flood
risk in urban drainage areas. Water 2014, 6, 253–270. [CrossRef]
17. Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems;
Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; ISBN 1559638567.
18. Cumming, G.S.; Barnes, G.; Perz, S.; Schmink, M.; Sieving, K.E.; Southworth, J.; Binford, M.; Holt, R.D.;
Stickler, C.; Van Holt, T. An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems
2005, 8, 975–987. [CrossRef]
19. Goonetilleke, A.; Thomas, E.; Ginn, S.; Gilbert, D. Understanding the role of land use in urban stormwater
quality management. J. Environ. Manage. 2005, 74, 31–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Spence, K.; Bridge, J.; Mcluckie, D.; Kandasamy, J. Urban Stormwater and Flood Management. In Urban
Stormwater and Flood Management. Applied Environmental Science and Engineering for a Sustainable Future;
Jegatheesan, V., Goonetilleke, A., van Leeuwen, J., Kandasamy, J., Warner, D., Myers, B., Bhuiyan, M.,
Spence, K., Parker, G., Eds.; Applied Environmental Science and Engineering for a Sustainable Future;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 139–157, ISBN 978-3-030-11817-4.
Water 2019, 11, 1485 26 of 28

21. Koutsoyiannis, D. Advances in Urban Flood Management; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007;
ISBN 9788578110796.
22. Pottier, N.; Penning-Rowsell, E.; Tunstall, S.; Hubert, G. Land use and flood protection: Contrasting
approaches and outcomes in France and in England and Wales. Appl. Geogr. 2005, 25, 1–27. [CrossRef]
23. Miguez, M.G.; Veról, A.P.; Rêgo, A.Q.d.S.F.; Lourenço, I.B. Urban Agglomeration and Supporting Capacity:
The Role of Open Spaces within Urban Drainage Systems as a Structuring Condition for Urban Growth.
In Urban Agglomeration; InTech: Vienna, Austria, 2018; Volume 2, pp. 137–164, ISBN 9789537619992.
24. Di Baldassarre, G.; Viglione, A.; Carr, G.; Kuil, L.; Salinas, J.L.; Blöschl, G. Socio-hydrology: Conceptualising
human-flood interactions. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 3295–3303. [CrossRef]
25. De Bruijn, K.M. Resilience and flood risk management. Water Policy 2004, 6, 53–66. [CrossRef]
26. Withanachchi, S.S.; Kunchulia, I.; Ghambashidze, G.; Al Sidawi, R.; Urushadze, T.; Ploeger, A. Farmers’
perception of water quality and risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the vulnerability of
the social-ecological system through community perceptions. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3062. [CrossRef]
27. Barendrecht, M.H.; Viglione, A.; Blöschl, G. A dynamic framework for flood risk. Water Secur. 2017, 1, 3–11.
[CrossRef]
28. Miguez, M.G.; Veról, A.P. A catchment scale Integrated Flood Resilience Index to support decision making in
urban flood control design. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2017, 44, 925–946. [CrossRef]
29. Han, N.-X.; Xing, F.; Han, N.-X.; Xing, F. A Comprehensive Review of the Study and Development of
Microcapsule Based Self-Resilience Systems for Concrete Structures at Shenzhen University. Materials 2016,
10, 2. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Beer, F.; Johnston, E.R.; Eisenberg, E. Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and Dynamics; McGraw-Hill
Education: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-07-352940-0.
31. Janssen, M.A.; Bodin, Ö.; Anderies, J.M.; Elmqvist, T.; Ernstson, H.; McAllister, R.R.J.; Olsson, P.; Ryan, P.
Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 15.
[CrossRef]
32. Holling, C.S. Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience. Eng. Ecol. Constraints 1996, 31–34.
Available online: http://www.environmentalmanager.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/holling-eng-vs-eco-
resilience.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2019).
33. Adger, W.N. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2000, 24, 347–364.
[CrossRef]
34. Mak, W.W.S.; Ng, I.S.W.; Wong, C.C.Y. Resilience: Enhancing well-being through the positive cognitive triad.
J. Couns. Psychol. 2011, 58, 610–617. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Rivera, F.I.; Kapucu, N. Geography and Resilience; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015;
ISBN 978-3-319-16452-6.
36. Folke, C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 253–267. [CrossRef]
37. Weichselgartner, J.; Kelman, I. Geographies of resilience. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2014, 39, 249–267. [CrossRef]
38. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Stults, M. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 147, 38–49.
[CrossRef]
39. Keating, A.; Campbell, K.; Szoenyi, M.; Mcquistan, C.; Nash, D.; Burer, M. Development and testing of a
community flood resilience measurement tool. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 17, 77–101. [CrossRef]
40. Chen, K.F.; Leandro, J. A Conceptual Time-Varying Flood Resilience Index for Urban Areas: Munich City.
Water 2019, 11, 830. [CrossRef]
41. McBain, W.; Wilkes, D.; Retter, M. Flood Resilience for Critical Infrastructure and Services; CIRIA: London, UK,
2010; ISBN 978-0-86017-688-6.
42. Kötter, T.; Vafeidis, A.; Moghadas, M.; Asadzadeh, A.; Fekete, A. A multi-criteria approach for assessing
urban flood resilience in Tehran, Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 35, 101069.
43. Murdock, H.; de Bruijn, K.; Gersonius, B.; Murdock, H.J.; De Bruijn, K.M.; Gersonius, B. Assessment of
Critical Infrastructure Resilience to Flooding Using a Response Curve Approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3470.
[CrossRef]
44. Cutter, S.L.; Barnes, L.; Berry, M.; Burton, C.; Evans, E.; Tate, E.; Webb, J. A place-based model for
understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 598–606. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 1485 27 of 28

45. Batica, J. Methodology for Flood Resilience Assessment in Urban Environments and Mitigation Strategy
Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Nice Sophia, Antipolis, France, 2015.
46. Baptista, S.R. Design and Use of Composite Indices in Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability and Resilience;
The Earth Institute, Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
47. Kotzee, I.; Reyers, B. Piloting a social-ecological index for measuring flood resilience: A composite index
approach. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 45–53. [CrossRef]
48. Zhang, D.; Gersberg, R.M.; Ng, W.J.; Tan, S.K. Conventional and decentralized urban stormwater management:
A comparison through case studies of Singapore and Berlin, Germany. Urban Water J. 2017, 14, 113–124.
[CrossRef]
49. Zonensein, J.; Gomes Miguez, M.; Cesar, F.; Mascarenhas, B. Flood Risk Index as an Urban Management Tool.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Palermo, Italy, 23–26 September
2008.
50. Rezende, O.M.; Miguez, M.G.; Franco, A.B.R.d.C.; Oliveira, A.K.B.; Miranda, F.M.; Jacob, A.C.P.; Sousa, M.M.
Index of risk to material recovery capacity. In Proceedings of the 13th Sustainable Development of Energy, Water
and Environment Systems (SDEWES); Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb:
Palermo, Italy, 2018; pp. 1–16.
51. Rezende, O.M.; de Franco, A.B.R.; Oliveira, A.K.B.; Jacob, A.C.P.; Miguez, M.G. A Framework to Assess
Urban Floods Resilience. In New Trends in Urban Drainage Modelling. UDM 2018; Mannina, G., Ed.; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 533–538, ISBN 978-3-319-99867-1.
52. Bertilsson, L.; Wiklund, K.; de Moura Tebaldi, I.; Rezende, O.M.; Veról, A.P.; Miguez, M.G. Urban flood
resilience—A multi-criteria index to integrate flood resilience into urban planning. J. Hydrol. 2019, 573,
970–982. [CrossRef]
53. Mascarenhas, F.C.B.; Miguez, M.G. Urban flood control through a mathematical cell model. Water Int. 2002,
27, 208–218. [CrossRef]
54. Miguez, M.G.; Battemarco, B.P.; De Sousa, M.M.; Rezende, O.M.; Veról, A.P.; Gusmaroli, G. Urban flood
simulation using MODCEL-an alternative quasi-2D conceptual model. Water 2017, 9, 445. [CrossRef]
55. Zanobetti, D.; Lorgeré, H. Le modèle mathématique du Delta du Mékong. La Houille Blanche 1968, 17–30.
[CrossRef]
56. Miguez, M.G.; Radesca, F.D.; Veról, A.P.; de Sousa, M.M.; Oliveira, L.F.G.S. Multilayer Modelling as a
Supporting Tool for Flood Diagnosis and Drainage System Design. In New Trends in Urban Drainage Modelling.
UDM 2018; Mannina, G., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 490–495, ISBN 978-3-319-99867-1.
57. Proag, V. The Concept of Vulnerability and Resilience. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 18, 369–376. [CrossRef]
58. Salgado, J.C.M. Economic Assessment of Drainage and Flood Control Projects in Urban Basins. Ph.D. Thesis,
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 1995.
59. Escudero-Bueno, I.; Torres, A.M.; Rodríguez, J.T.C.; Momparler, S.P. SUFRI Methodology for Pluvial and River
Flooding Risk Assessment in Urban Areas to Inform Decision-Making; WP3 Final Report, ERA-NET CRUE,
SUFRI project—Sustainable Strategies of Urban Flood Risk Management with non-structural measures
to cope with the residual risk, 2nd ERA-Net CRUE Funding Initiative; Graz University of Technology:
Styria, Austria, 2011.
60. RESCDAM. The Use of Physical Models in Dam-Break Flood Analysis; Final Report; Helsinki University of
Technology: Helsinki, Finland, 2000.
61. McBain, W.; Wilkes, D.; Retter, M. Flood Resilience and Resistance for Critical Infrastructure; Ciria, Classic House:
London, UK, 2010.
62. Zanetti, V.; De Sousa Junior, W.; De Freitas, D. A Climate Change Vulnerability Index and Case Study in a
Brazilian Coastal City. Sustainability 2016, 8, 811. [CrossRef]
63. Marengo, J.A. Mudanças Climáticas Globais e seus Efeitos Sobre a Biodiversidade: Caracterização do Clima
Atual e Definição das Alterações Climáticas para o Território Brasileiro ao Longo do século XXI, 2nd ed.; MMA:
Brasilia, Brazil, 2017; Volume 1, ISBN 85-7738-038-6.
64. Collins, M.; Knutti, R.; Arblaster, J.; Dufresne, J.-L.; Fichefet, T. Long-term Climate Change: Projections,
Commitments and Irreversibility. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D.,
Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Eds.; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013; p. 107.
Water 2019, 11, 1485 28 of 28

65. Stocker, T.F.; Dahe, Q.; Plattner, G.-K.; Alexander, L.V.; Allen, S.K.; Bindoff, N.L.; Bréon, F.-M.; Church, J.A.;
Cubash, U.; Emori, S.; et al. IPCC Technical Summary AR5. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2019).
66. Marengo, J.A.; Scarano, F.R.; Klein, A.F.; Souza, C.R.G.; Chou, S.C. Impacto, vulnerabilidade e adaptação das
cidades costeiras brasileiras às mudanças climáticas; Marengo, J.A., Scarano, F.R., Eds.; PBMC, COPPE-UFRJ:
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2016; ISBN 9788528503456.
67. Santos, R.T.F. Efeitos da subida do nível do mar na inundação costeira na costa leste do Brasil devido às
mudanças climáticas. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2017.
68. Baptista, M.; Nascimento, N.; Barraud, S. Técnicas Compensatórias em Drenagem Urbana, 1st ed.; ABRH:
Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2011; ISBN 9788588686311.
69. Hoang, L.; Fenner, R.A. System interactions of stormwater management using sustainable urban drainage
systems and green infrastructure. Urban Water J. 2016, 13, 739–758. [CrossRef]
70. Manual for Proposals for Sustainable urban Drainage Systems and Stormwater Management (in Portuguese);
Ministério das Cidades: Brasília, Brazil, 2012.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).