Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 13001
Number of page(s) 13
Section Non-structural measures and instruments
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160713001
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. A. Blanco and J. Schanze (2014). Assessment of the physical flood susceptibility of buildings on a large scale – conceptual and methodological frameworks. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14(8), 2105–2117. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. P. Bowker, M. Escarameia and A. Tagg (2007). Improving the flood performance of new buildings – Flood resilient construction. London: RIBA Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  3. A. Connelly, V. Gabalda, S. Garvin, K. Hunter, D. Kelly, N. Lawson, P. O’Hare and I. White (2015). Testing innovative technologies to manage flood risk. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Water Management, 168(2), 66–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. I. Douglas, S. Garvin, N. Lawson, J. Richards, J. Tippet and I. White (2010). Urban pluvial flooding: a quantitative case study of cause, effect and non-structural mitigation. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3(2), 112–125. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. M. Escarameia, A. Karanxha and A. Tagg (2007). Quantifying the flood resilience properties of walls in typical UK dwellings. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, 28(3), 249–263. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. M. Escarameia, A. Tagg, N. Walliman, C. Zevenbergen and F. Anvarifar (2012). The Role of Building Materials in Improved Flood Resilience and Routes for Implementation. In: F. Klijn and T. Schweckendiek (Eds.) Comprehensive Flood Risk Management: Research for Policy and Practice. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Flood Risk Management FLOODrisk2012. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 19–23 November 2012. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 333–335. [Google Scholar]
  7. European Union (2007). Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks [online]. Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:L:2007:288:0027:0034:EN:PDF [Accessed 26 February 2016]. [Google Scholar]
  8. FEMA (2010). Protecting your home and property from flood damage – Mitigation ideas for reducing flood loss. Washington, DC: FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency. [Google Scholar]
  9. H. Gamerith and K. Hoefler (2006). Praeventiver Hochwasserschutz – Planungsgrundsaetze [Preventive flood protection – Planning Principles]. Graz: ARGE. [Google Scholar]
  10. S. Garvin (2012). Flood Resilient Building – Part 2: Building in flood-risk areas and designing flood-resilient buildings. Watford: BRE Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. V. Gabalda, S. Garvin, K. Hunter, C. Florence, JL. Salagnac, S. Golz, M-C. Veldhuis, J. Diez and JV. Monnot (2012). Flood resilience technologies. Deliverable 2.3 of the EU-FP7 research project ‘Smart Resilient Technology, Systems and Tools’ (SMARTeST) [online]. Available from: http://www.floodresilience.eu/attachments/article/165/D2.3%20final-July13.pdf [Accessed 20 September 2014]. [Google Scholar]
  12. S. Golz (forthcoming). Bewertung der Schadensanfälligkeit von Mauerwerkskonstruktionen gegenüber Hochwassereinwirkungen. [Assessing the flood vulnerability of external wall constructions.] Dissertation. Technische Universität Dresden. [Google Scholar]
  13. S. Golz, R. Schinke and T. Naumann (2015). Assessing the effects of flood resilience technologies on building scale. Urban Water Journal, 12(1), 30–43. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. N. Lawson (2011). The Flood Risk Management Glossary. Incorporating FLOODsite Glossary (FLOODsite), Flood Mapping Manual Editorial Group Glossary (FMMEP), Urban Flood Management Glossary (UFM), and the SMARTeST Project Glossary (SMARTeST). Manchester: The University of Manchester. [Google Scholar]
  15. B. Merz, H. Kreibich, R. Schwarze and A. Thieken (2010). Assessment of economic flood damage.Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10, 1697–1724. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. T. Naumann, J. Nikolowski and S. Golz (2009). Synthetic depth-damage functions – a detailed tool for analysing flood resilience of building types. In: E. Pasche, N. Evelpidou, C. Zevenbergen, R. Ashley and GarvinS.L. (Eds.) Road Map Towards a Flood Resilient Urban Environment. Hamburg: Institut fuer Wasserbau der Technischen Universität Hamburg-Harburg. [Google Scholar]
  17. T. Naumann, J. Nikolowski, S. Golz and R. Schinke (2010). Resilience and Resistance of Buildings and Built Structures to Flood Impacts – Approaches to Analysis and Evaluation. In: B. Mueller (Ed.) German Annual of Spatial Research and Policy 2010 – Urban Regional Resilience: How Do Cities and Regions Deal with Change? Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 89–100. [Google Scholar]
  18. OECD (2002). Evaluation and aid effectiveness – Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. Paris; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Development Assistance Committee (DAC) [online]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf [Google Scholar]
  19. P. Samuels and B. Gouldby (2009). Language of Risk – Project Definitions. 2nd edition, FLOODsite Consortium, FLOODsite Project Report T32-04-01 [online]. Available from: http://www.floodsite.net/html/partner_area/project_docs/floodsite_language_of_risk_v4_0_p1.pdf [Accessed 20 September 2014]. [Google Scholar]
  20. USACE (1998). Flood Proofing Performance – Success and Failures. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – National Flood Proofing Committee. [Google Scholar]
  21. I. White (2010). Water and the City: Risk, resilience and planning for a sustainable future. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  22. I. White, A Connelly, N. Lawson and P. O’ Hare (2013). Integration of Flood Resilience Technologies, Systems and Tools. Deliverable 5.3 of the EU-FP7 research project ‘Smart Resilient Technology, Systems and Tools’ (SMARTeST) [online]. Available from: http://www.floodresilience.eu/attachments/article/171/D5.3%20final-July13%5B1%5D.pdf [Accessed 20 September 2014]. [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.