EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 7 (2016) E3S Web Conf., 7 (2016) 07005 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 07005
Number of page(s) 10
Section Critical infrastructure and cascading impacts
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160707005
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. Pitt, M. (2008) Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. Cabinet Office, London [Google Scholar]
  2. Norio O, Ye T, Kajitani Y, Shi P, Tatano H (2011) The 2011 Eastern Japan great earthquake disaster: overview and comments. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 2(1):34–42. doi:10.1007/s13753-011-0004-9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Komori D. et al. (2012) Characteristics of the 2011 Chao Phraya River flood in Central Thailand. Hydrological Research Letters 6:41–46. doi:10.3178/HRL.6.41 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. De Bruijn, K.M., Lips, N., Gersonius, B., and Middelkoop, H. (2016). The storyline approach: a new way to analyse and improve flood event management. Natural Hazards (2016) 81: 99–121. DOI 10.1007/s11069-015-2074-2 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. European Commission (2005). On a European programme for CI protection. Green Paper. COM/2005/0576 final, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. [Google Scholar]
  6. Serre D, Lhomme S, Heilemann K, et al. (2011) Assessing vulnerability to floods of the built environment. Integrating urban networks and buildings. In: Ayyub B. M. (2011). Vulnerability, uncertainty, and risk: analysis, modeling, and management. ASCE, USA, pp 746–753. doi:10.1061/41170(400)91 [Google Scholar]
  7. Halcrow, 2014a. Lee Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study. Final report. Halcrow Group Ireland Limited, Dublin Ireland. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hall JW, Sayers PB, Dawson RJ (2005) Nationalscale assessment of current and future flood losses. Natural Hazards 36(1–2):147–164 [Google Scholar]
  9. Kind, J.M. (2014) Economically efficient flood protection standards for the Netherlands. Journal of Flood Risk Management 7 (2) pp. 103–117, Doi:10.1111/jfr3.12026. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Klijn F, De Bruijn KM, Knoop J, Kwadijk J (2012) Assessment of the Netherlands’ flood risk management policy under global change. Ambio. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0193-x [Google Scholar]
  11. Kok, M., H.J. Huizinga, A.C.W.M. Vrouwenvelder, and W.E.W van den Braak (2005). Standaardmethode 2005, Schade en Slachtoffers als gevolg van overstroming. HKV, TNO-bouw, Rijkswaterstaat DWW. Delft, The Netherlands (In Dutch). [Google Scholar]
  12. Penning-Rowsell, E.C., C.Johnson, and S.Tunstall (2005). The benefits of Flood and Coastal Risk Management: A Manual of Assessment Techniques. Middlesex University Press, London, UK.. [Google Scholar]
  13. Halcrow, 2014b. Lee Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study. Hydraulics Report. Halcrow Group Ireland Limited, Dublin Ireland. [Google Scholar]
  14. Inter-agency Review Working Group (2005). A Framework for major emergency management. Ministry of Environment, Heritage and local government, Ministry for Health and Children, Ministry for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland. (Accessed at the 15th of March, 2016 through: http://mem.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/A-Framework-For-Major-Emergency-Management.pdf) [Google Scholar]
  15. Lower Lee Website (accessed at the 14th of March 2016): http://www.lowerleefrs.ie/ [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.