Structure of the bibliography

In this bibliography each reference is annotated by means of an abstract which explains the content of the reference.  The references are organised in the alphabetical order of the surname of the first author within discrete sections which structure the bibliography.  These sections group together references addressing similar areas of benefit or impact as well as grouping together those references which address a general overview and theory.  Where a reference covers more than one area of impact, a judgement has been about the predominant content so that the reference has been allocated to the grouping which represents this predominance.  Users may need to consult one or more sections of the bibliography.

The focus of this bibliography is firstly, flood risk management, and secondly, flood-related Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and multi-criteria analysis (MCA). However, the second part includes a few selected general texts and papers on these methods which will help the user contextualise flood-related CBA and MCA applications. To aid users these CBA and MCA methods are first summarised below.  Because financial analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis may also be used to evaluate project options, the basic differences between these methods and CBA and MCA are also briefly explained but literature relating to cost-effectiveness analysis is not specifically contained in this bibliography.

Flood risk management (FRM)

The concept of managing flood risk has increasingly attracted attention throughout the world as the limitations of flood prevention, flood control and flood protection approaches have become recognised. Flood risk management, like other management strategies, provides a framework assessing flood risk and for balancing the multiple complementary and competing factors that affect risk. Flood risk management recognises that for technical, socio-economic and political reasons flood risk cannot be completely eliminated and often has to be managed with an element of on-going residual risk. Flood risk management also recognises the benefit of applying appropriate portfolios of the full range of flood risk reduction measures in order to minimise the adverse impacts of floods. These measures include ones which adapt to climate change. Carefully crafted flood risk management strategies also consider associated risk and opportunities, such as protecting natural floodplain functions and ensuring an equitable balance of the distribution of costs and benefits of management measures. This bibliography focuses upon these aspects among others.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA)

CBA is the traditional method for organising information to aid decisions about the allocation of resources: most usually public or government investment resources. Its power as an analytical tool rests in two main features. Firstly, costs and benefits are expressed as far as possible in monetary terms so that they are directly comparable with one another. Secondly, costs and benefits are valued in terms of the claims they make on and the gains they provide to the community as a whole, so the perspective is a ‘global’ one rather than that of any particular individual or interest group. CBA requires a holistic analysis of all benefits and costs involved in order to assess a risk reducing activity in comparison to its net benefit. A distinguishing feature of this approach is that it may result in recommendations to implement different safety standards for different risk situations, depending on the specific risk and the costs involved to reduce it. The major and often criticised shortcoming of this approach concerns the fact that all benefits and costs are quantified in monetary terms and aggregated to a single number without the possibility of giving some risks a larger weight.

CBA is often attributed to the work the late 19th century economist Alfred Marshall, but the first use of CBA in the world was made in the flood risk management sector in the United States in compliance with the United States Flood Control Act of 1936. This Act specified that participation of the United States Federal Government in projects to control flooding on major rivers would be justifiable if the benefits to whomsoever they accrue are in excess of the estimated costs. Thereafter, authorities developed procedures to measure these benefits and costs. CBA is now widely used across sectors and countries and the methodology has been much refined..

The major strength of CBA that it is based on well-understood theoretical foundations, derived from more than a century of research in welfare economics. This gives CBA a high degree of internal consistency. Because all cost-benefit studies share a common methodology, lessons learned in one project appraisal can be transferred to other studies, allowing the accumulation of expertise.

Multi-criteria analysis (MCA)

MCA is similar to CBA regarding the overall aim of undertaking a holistic analysis in order to identify and, if possible, quantify all benefits and costs of risk-reducing activities. Relative to CBA, the main merit of MCA is that it provides an explicit method of taking account of project impacts that are not easily given monetary values (often called ‘intangibles’ in CBA). However, MCA presents the opportunity of measuring the consequences of an activity in terms of different units while leaving the final weighting of criteria to the decision-makers or to a stakeholder group. Mathematical algorithms are then used to determine the most favourable risk reducing activity in the context of different risk perceptions, risk attitudes and preferences of decision makers and stakeholders. The results are then passed back and discussed within the political process in order to support the finding of the most appropriate risk-reducing activities.

The disciplinary origins of MCA of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) are in decision-making theory, operational research and management science. MCA had its origins in the 1960s in the application of linear programming to management and industry. Goal programming since has become a mainstay of management science and operations research.

It has sometimes been suggested that financial viability should not be made a concern because as long as a project is economically sound, it can be supported through government subsidies.

The relationship between flood damages/losses and benefits of flood risk management 

Some of the literature contained in this bibliography focuses upon the impacts of flooding – whether these be damage to property and infrastructure or harm to human beings, including the ill-health effects of floods and loss of life in floods. The potential benefits of flood risk management are the equivalent to the avoidance of these losses and so benefits are estimated by assessing damages and losses potentially avoided.

Scope and limitations of the bibliography 

Inevitably this bibliography is selective and there are therefore limitations in this regard. The literature searched and included is that in the English language only and the user should be aware that there is also a bias towards UK and European material which reflects the author’s background. 

Download the Bibliography

Back to the Main Menu