FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT

GROUP 2

H/SG/21/0418
H/SG/21/0420
H/SG/21/0434
H/SG/21/0446
H/SG/21/0445
H/SG/21/0432
H/SG/21/0443
H/SG/21/0445

Surv. Adaradohun
 TABLE OF CONTENT

 Abstract
 Introduction
 Literature review
 Methodology
 Results
 Conclusion
 Refference
 ABSTRACT
Risk management has been established as a well-defined procedure for handling risks due to
natural, environmental or man-made hazards, of which floods are representative. Risk
management has been discussed in many previous papers giving different meanings to the term,
a result of the fact that risk management actually takes place on three different levels of actions:
the operational level, which is associated with operating an existing system, a project planning
level, which is used when a new, or a revision of an existing project is planned, and a project
design level, which is embedded into the second level and describes the process of reaching an
optimal solution for the project.
The first two levels will be briefly described in the paper. It will be emphasized that the
transition from the first to the second level is a dynamic process. As the value system of a nation
changes, and as the natural boundary conditions are modified by human actions or global
changes, an existing system will be found not meeting the demands of the present society, and
actions on the second level are initiated. The decisions for change depend on the changes in
options available for handling a flood situation, as well as on the changes in risk perception and
attitudes towards risk. On the third level, the actual cost of a design are evaluated and compared
with the benefits obtained from the planned project. In particular, on this level the residual risk is
considered, i.e. the risk which remains even after a project is completed and fully operational.
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

A flood is a natural disaster that occurs when a large amount of water overflows from a body of water,
such as a river, lake, or ocean, and inundates land that is normally dry. Floods can be caused by a variety
of factors, including heavy rainfall, snowmelt, dam or levee failures, or coastal storms such as hurricanes
or typhoons.
Floods can be particularly devastating because they can cause extensive damage to infrastructure, homes,
and businesses, and can also result in loss of life. They can also lead to secondary hazards such as
landslides, water contamination, and disease outbreaks.
In order to minimize the impact of floods, communities may implement measures such as building levees
and dams, creating flood warning systems, and zoning regulations that prohibit development in areas that
are prone to flooding. Emergency management agencies may also develop plans for evacuating people
and providing aid to affected communities in the event of a flood.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be a powerful tool for flood risk management. GIS allows for
the analysis of geographic data related to flood hazards, such as flood zones, elevation, land use, and
infrastructure, which can help in identifying areas that are vulnerable to flooding and assessing the
potential impact of a flood event.
GIS can also be used to create flood hazard maps, which can be used by emergency managers and
community planners to make informed decisions about land use and infrastructure development. These
maps can help identify areas that are at risk of flooding, as well as critical infrastructure and populations
that may be affected by a flood event. GIS can also assist in flood preparedness and response by
providing real-time information about flood events, such as flood extent, water levels, and damage
assessments. This information can be used to inform emergency responders and decision makers about
the extent of the flood event and the resources needed to respond effectively. Additionally, GIS can be
used to simulate and model flood events, which can help in developing and testing flood mitigation
strategies, such as the placement of levees and dams or the restoration of wetlands and floodplains. These
simulations can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of flood warning systems and evacuation plans.
In summary, GIS can provide valuable tools for flood risk management, including mapping and analysis
of flood hazards, simulation and modeling of flood events, and real-time monitoring and response to flood
events
Flood Risk Management Flood risk management refers to the efforts and strategies implemented to
minimize the impact of floods on human life and property. This involves a range of activities, including
assessing flood risk, developing flood protection measures, implementing flood warning systems, and
educating the public about flood risks.
The management of flood risk typically involves a combination of measures, including structural and
nonstructural approaches. Structural measures include building dams, levees, and other flood protection
infrastructure to prevent flooding or mitigate its effects. Non-structural measures include measures such
as zoning regulations, land-use planning, and flood insurance policies. Effective flood risk management
requires coordination among various government agencies, local communities, and stakeholders,
including homeowners, businesses, and non-governmental organizations. It also involves understanding
the environmental, economic, and social factors that contribute to flood risks. Flood risk management is
critical for protecting lives and property, ensuring economic stability, and promoting sustainable
development in areas prone to flooding

METHOD USED FOR FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT

There are several methods used for flood risk management, and these methods can be broadly
classified into two categories: structural and non-structural measures.
Structural measures: Structural measures are physical interventions to control or manage
flooding.
Examples include: Building levees, dams, and floodwalls to reduce the flow of water and prevent
flooding.
 Constructing detention basins, storm water ponds, and other water storage
facilities to hold excess water and prevent downstream flooding.
 Diverting water away from flood-prone areas through the use of channels,
canals, and diversion structures.
Non-structural measures: Non-structural measures aim to reduce the exposure of people and
assets to flooding, without necessarily altering the natural flow of water. Examples include:
Land-use planning and zoning regulations to limit development in flood prone areas.
 Education and awareness-raising campaigns to inform people about the risks
of flooding and how to prepare for floods.
 Flood forecasting and early warning systems to provide advance notice of
potential flood events.
 Developing emergency response plans to ensure timely and effective response
in case of a flood.
The most effective flood risk management strategies involve a combination of structural and
non-structural measures, tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of the area in question.
It is important to involve all stakeholders in the process to ensure the successful implementation
of flood risk management strategies
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVEIW

Flood risk management in a narrow sense is the process of managing an existing flood risk situation.
In a wider sense, it includes the planning of a system, which will reduce the flood risk. These two aspects
of flood risk management will be considered separately, starting with the management of an existing
system that consists of the processes indicated in Fig. 1. Risk management for the operation of an existing
flood protection system is the sum of actions for a rational approach to flood disaster mitigation. Its
purpose is the control of flood disasters, in the sense of being prepared for a flood, and to minimize its
impact. It includes the process of risk analysis, which provides the basis for long term management
decisions for the existing flood protection system. Continuous improvement of the system requires a
reassessment of the existing risks and an evaluation of the hazards depending on the newest information
available: on new data, on new theoretical developments, or on new boundary conditions, for example,
due to change of land use. The hazards are to be combined with the vulnerability into the risk. The
vulnerability of the persons or objects (the ‘elements at risk’) in an area, which is inundated if a flood of a
certain magnitude occurs, is weighted with the frequency of occurrence of that flood. A good risk analysis
process yields hazard or risk maps, which today are drawn by means of Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) based on extensive surveys of vulnerability combined with topographic maps. Such maps
serve to identify weak points of the flood defense system, or indicate a need for action, which may lead to
a new project. Other weaknesses of the system become evident during extreme floods. For example, the
Oder flood of 1997 has indicated (Kowalczak, 1999) that weak points contributing to flooding of a city in
a flood plain not only are failures of dikes, but also seepage through the dikes and penetration of flood
waters through the drainage system, i.e. through the sewerage system or water courses inside the city.
Risk analysis forms the basis for decisions on maintaining and improving the system, which is the second
part of the operation of an existing system. It is a truism that a system requires continuous maintenance to
be always functioning as planned, and new concepts of protection may require local improvements of the
existing system. A third part of the management process is the preparedness stage, whose purpose is to
provide the necessary decision support system for the case that the existing flood protection system has
failed. It is evident that no technical solution to flooding is absolutely safe. Even if the system always
does what it is supposed to do, it is hardly ever possible to offer protection against any conceivable flood.
There is always a residual risk, due to failure of technical systems, or due to the rare flood which exceeds
the design flood. The Oder river flood of 1997 (Bronstert et al. 1999; Gru¨newald et al., 1998) comes to
mind.
It is the purpose of preparedness to reduce the residual risk through early warning systems and measures
which can be taken to mitigate the effect of a flood disaster. An important step in improving an existing
flood protection system is the provision of better warning systems. Obviously, the basis for a warning
system has to be an effective forecasting system, which permits the early identification and quantification
of an imminent flood to which a population is exposed. If this is not accurately forecasted or at least
estimated early enough, a warning system for effective mitigating activities cannot be constructed.
Therefore, it is an important aspect that systems managers remain continuously alerted to new
developments in flood forecasting technology, and to be prepared to use this technology to the fullest
extent.
The final part of operational risk management is disaster relief, i.e. the set of actions to be taken when
disaster has struck. It is the process of organizing humanitarian aid to the victims, and later reconstruction
of damaged buildings and lifelines.
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Software used in this study were selected based on the capability to work on the existing problems in
achieving the predetermined objectives. First and for most, Arc Hydro 9 software, which works as an
extension on ArcGIS 9× version software, was used to delineate the watershed for which flood hazard
analysis was done.
MS Excel was used for the flood frequency analysis. Image processing software, ERDAS 9.1 was used
for image processing of satellite images. Another image processing software, ENVI 4.3 was used to
compute change detection analysis on land use/land cover map of classified images and to do accuracy
assessment. The factor map development was carried out using ArcGIS 9.2. The factors that are input for
multi-criteria analysis should be pre-processed in accordance to the criteria set to develop flood hazard
and risk analysis. So, using Spatial Analyst, 3D Analyst and Geostatistical Analyst extensions, some
relevant GIS analyses were undertaken to convert the collected shape files. Eigen vector for the selected
factor was computed using Weight module in IDRISI 32 software.
Land cover mapping requires the use of other interpretation elements than just reflectance, particularly
positioned in the landscape, with size and association. In addition, knowledge of the land use systems and
their extent is essential for attributing spectral reflectance curves to land cover types. Since the same
spectral reflectance curve can represent a variety of land cover types, ground information is essential.
Ground information is also needed to determine other land cover characteristics (interpretation elements)
such as associations, landscape position, etc. Field visits were consequently undertaken as early as
possible in the mapping of the study sites. The principal aim of the field visit was to understand the image
representation of the ground information; to learn what all the image and patterns represent, although
areas of uncertainty will always be discovered later. This method was previously used to interpret aerial
photography – rather than the black box approach whereby ground information is only recognized from
Flood risk of the woreda was analyzed from the following general risk equation (Shook, 1997).
Risk=(Elements at risk)×(Hazard ×Vulnerability )
The flood hazard analysis was computed using MCE. To run MCE, the selected flood causative factors
such as slope, soil type, elevation, land use/land cover, drainage density, and rainfall were developed and
weighted. Then weighted overlay technique was conducted in ArcGIS 9.2 Model Builder to generate
flood hazard map. Considering the degree of loss to be total for the study area, the vulnerability is
assumed to be one. Finally, to generate flood risk map of the woreda, layers of elements at risk
(population density and land use) and flood hazard were overlaid using weighted overlay analysis
technique in GIS environment.
Flood frequency analysis is one of the important studies of river hydrology. It is essential to interpret the
past record of flood events in order to evaluate future possibilities of such occurrences. The estimation of
the frequencies of flood is essential for the quantitative assessment of the flood problem. The knowledge
of magnitude and probable frequency of such recurrence is also required for proper design and location of
hydraulic structures and for other allied studies. The gauge data which are random variable follow the law
of statistical distribution. After a detailed study of the distribution of the random variables and its
parameters such as standard deviation, skewers etc. and applying probability theory, one can reasonably
predict the probability of occurrence of any major flood events in terms of discharge or water level for a
specified return period.
Flood frequency analysis was done in this study by selecting annual maximum daily gauge levels at Ribb-
Addiszemen and Gumara gauge site located in the catchment area. Two methods of statistical distribution
i.e. Gumbel’s extreme value distribution and Log Pearson type III distribution were attempted by
selecting peak gauge level data for 35 years (1971–2005) at the two gauge stations above.
Gumbel’s Method: This extreme value distribution was introduced by Gumbel (1954) and is commonly
known as Gumbel’s distribution (Gumbel, 1954 as cited by Suresh, 2005). It is one of the most widely
used probability analysis for extreme values in hydrologic and meteorological studies for prediction of
flood, rainfall etc. Gumbel defined flood as the largest of the 365 daily flows and the annual series of
flood flows constitute a series of largest values of flows. This study attempt to find out water levels at
different return period using the Gumbel’s equation: xT =x +k × SDV
Where x T =Valueof variate witha return period ‘ T ”
x avg=Mean of the variate
SDV =Standard deviation of the sample
y T −0.577
k =frequency factor expressed as k=
1.2825
y T =Reduced variate expressed by
yT
=−(ln× ln)
(t−1)
T =Return period
Log Pearson Type – III Method: This method is extensively used in USA for project sponsored by US
Government. In this method, the variate is first transformed into logarithmic form (base 10) and the
transformed data is then analyzed (Chow et al., 1988). If “X” is the variate of a random hydrologic series,
then the series of “Z” variates where z = log x are first obtained. For this “z” series, for any recurrence
interval “T”, the equation is z T =z avg+ K z × SDV
Where, K z=Frequency factor taken¿ table with values of coefficient of skew “Cs ”and recurrence
interval “T”.
SDV =Standard deviation of the Z variate sample
C s=co efficient of skew of variate Z
3
N Σ ( z −z avg )
¿ 3
(N −1)(N −2)(SDV )
Zavg = Mean of the “Z” values
N = Sample size = Number of years of record
After finding “zT” with the equation above, the corresponding value of “xT” is obtained by
xT = Antilog (zT)
After obtaining gauge levels by the above two methods for different return period flood, Chi Square test
was carried out for “goodness of fit”.
Recurrence Interval can be calculated as:
(n + 1) /m
Where, n is number of samples (years), and m-rank of a given gauge level specific training areas.
 DATA PROCESSING, ANALYSIS AND RESULT
DATABASE DESIGN
The geographic database (geodatabase) is a core geographic information model to organize a spatial data
in to thematic layers and spatial representations. Two types of geodatabase architectures are available
under ESRI’s ArcGIS package: Personal Geodatabase and Multiuser Geodatabase. In this study, personal
geodatabase was implemented to store the necessary data that could be applicable to the final analysis for
the designed objectives.
LAND USE/LAND COVER ANALYSIS
The 1973 MSS, 1985 TM and 1999 ETM Landsat images of Rib-Gumara catchment were used to define
the different classes of land cover types and thereby for the land use/land cover change detection.
Supervised image classification which is a widely used technique was applied in this study. Accordingly,
the three land use/land cover maps of the year 1973 (Fig. 9.3a), 1985 (Fig. 9.3b) and 1999 (Fig. 9.3c)
were generated using maximum likelihood classifier algorithm. The 1973 land use/land cover pattern of
the catchment has been classified into five categories- such as agricultural land, bare land, grass land,
Shrub and Reed land, and Wood land. Agricultural and wood lands occupy most of the areas in the
catchment. While that of the 1985 and 1999 Land use/land cover patterns were classified in to seven
classes such as agricultural land, bare land, grass land, plantation forest, Shrub and Reed land, swamp,
and Wood land. In the 1985 land use/land cover classes, Agricultural and Grass lands occupy most of the
areas while in that of the 1999 agricultural land constitute the largest part.
The ground truth data were utilized in the maximum likelihood report as the independent data set from
which the classification accuracy was compared. The accuracy is essentially a measure of how many
ground truth pixels were classified correctly. An overall accuracy of 87.63% was achieved with a Kappa
coefficient of 0.84 for Landsat 1999 ETM image. The Kappa coefficient represents the proportion of
agreement obtained after removing the proportion of agreement that could be expected to occur by chance
(Leica Geosystem, 2000). This implies that the Kappa value of 0.84 represents a probable 84.02% better
accuracy than if the classification resulted from a random, unsupervised, assignment instead of the
employed maximum likelihood classification. Kappa values are characterized into 3 groupings: a value
greater than 0.80 (80%) represents strong agreement, a value between 0.40 and 0.80 (40–80%) represents
moderate agreement, and a value below 0.40 (40%) represents poor agreement (Leica Geosystem, 2000).
Therefore, the classification in this study meets the specified requirement.
Changes in land cover driven by land use can be categorized into two types: modification and conversion.
Modification is a change of condition within a cover type; for example, unmanaged forest modified to a
forest managed by selective cutting. Conversion is a change from one cover type to another, such as
deforestation to create cropland or pasture.
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The basic idea of flood hazard and risk assessment and mapping as undertaken in this study is to regulate
land use and population distribution by flood plain zoning in order to restrict the damages. In the light of
above discussion, it can be said that flood risk mapping, being an important non-structural flood
management technique, will go long way in reducing flood damages in areas frequented by flood.
Pair wise comparison method of flood hazard map generation is a good approach to deduce a sound
decision for a forthcoming flood disaster, provided the required data are standardized to a common scale
in personal geo-database. This study confirmed that the method used was capable to integrate all the flood
hazard causative factors and the components of flood risk as well in a GIS environment. In this fashion,
composite maps were generated to assess flood risk of Fogera woreda.
One of the Multi Criteria Evaluation techniques known as Weighted Overlay in GIS environment was
shown to be useful for delineating areas at different rating in terms of flood hazard and flood risk.
Moreover, factor weight computation in Weight module, that is developed by providing a series of pair
wise comparisons of the relative importance of factors to the suitability of pixels for the activity being
evaluated, has generated valuable information. This could be useful for disaster studies in the future.
Therefore, it has been shown that MCE–GIS based model combination has potentiality to provide rational
and non-biased approach in making decisions in disaster studies.
Satellite images were shown to be very important for land use/land cover change studies with certain
limitations like cloud cover and striping. The change statistics of land use/land cover of Ribb–Gumara
Catchment showed that clearance of land cover for agricultural expansion has been aggravating flood
hazard in the downstream areas of Ribb and Gumara Rivers, Fogera woreda.
Flood frequency analysis of peak hydrological data yielded the return periods of each major peak
discharges and the magnitude and probability of occurrence of flood peaks of specified return periods so
as to help preparedness to cope with such peaks. Flood frequency analysis combined with GIS was found
very important to map the likely inundated areas of a given catchment. In this study, the likely inundated
areas mapped using the 100 year return period base flood and DEM, and the flood hazard map obtained
from the overlay analysis of flood causative factors in the study area soundly agree to each other. And
therefore, the combination of the two results would be a step forward for flood management and
mitigation strategies.
This study also showed that recent floods in Fogera woreda, in particular and Ribb–Gumara catchment in
general are not mainly due to rainfall but due to vegetation removal. Therefore, environmental issues
should be given great emphasis in flood risk management in addition to hydrological parameters.
Although flooding is a natural phenomenon, we cannot completely stop it; we can minimize its adverse
effects by better planning. The study has shown that automatic flood map delineation can be produced for
big river system in short time with the support of GIS and remote sensing.
 REFERENCES
ChatGPT. https://chat,openai,com 2023
Google, https://www,google,com 2023
Google Scholar, https://scholar,google,com 2023
Jasper ai. https://www,jasper,com 2023
Turnitin,
ASCE, 1998, Task Committee on Sustainability criteria. American Society if Civil Engineers,
and Working Group UNESCO/ IHPIV Project M-4.3 Sustainability criteria for water resources
systems. ASCE, Reston, VA, USA.

Bronstert, A., Ghazi, A., Hljadny, J., Kundzevicz, Z.W., Menzel, L., 1999. Proceedings of the
European Expert Meeting on the Oder Flood, May 18, Potsdam, Germany, European
Commission. Crouch, E.A.C., Wilson, R., 1982. Risk Benefit Analysis, Ballinger Publisher,
Boston, MA, USA.

Eikenberg, C., 1998. Journalistenhandbuch zum Katastrophenman- agement, Fifth ed., German
IDNDR-Committee, Bonn. Freeze, R.A., Massmann, J., Smith, L., Sperling, T., James, B., 1990.
Hydrogeological decision analysis. 1. A framework. Groundwater 28, S738–S766.

Gru¨newald, U., 1998. The Causes, Progression, and Consequences of the river Oder Floods in
Summer 1997, Including Remarks on the Existence of Risk Potential, German IDNDR
Committee for Natural Disaster Reduction, German IDNDR Series No. 10e, Bonn.

Moore, R.J., Jones, D.A., 1998. In: Casale, R., Pedrolit, G.B.,