Skip to content

Hess Opinions: An interdisciplinary research agenda to explore the unintended consequences of structural flood protection

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • Giuliano Di Baldassarre
  • H Kreibich
  • Sergiy Voroguyshyn
  • J.C.J.H Aerts
  • K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen
  • M. Barendrecht
  • Paul Bates
  • M Borga
  • W.J.W. Botzen
  • P. Bubeck
  • B. De Marchi
  • C. Llasat
  • M. Mazzoleni
  • D. Molinari
  • E. Mondino
  • J. Mård
  • O. Petrucci
  • A. Scolobig
  • A Viglione
  • P.J Ward
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)5629-5637
Number of pages9
JournalHydrology and Earth System Sciences
Issue number11
Early online date30 Oct 2018
DateAccepted/In press - 23 Oct 2018
DateE-pub ahead of print - 30 Oct 2018
DatePublished (current) - Nov 2018


One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as ‘levee effect’, ‘safe development paradox’ or ‘safety dilemma’. In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of structural flood protection, and then we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Copernicus at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 172 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups