Published May 5, 2023
| Version v1
Book section
Giving Room to the River: A Nature-Based Solution for Flash Flood Hazards? The Brague River Case Study (France)
Contributors
Others:
- Institut des Géosciences de l'Environnement (IGE) ; Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (INRAE)-Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA)-Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology (Grenoble INP ) ; Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA)
- Université Catholique de Lyon (UCLy) (UCLy)
- Université Côte d'Azur (UCA)
- Caisse Centrale de Réassurance ; parent
- Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion (GREDEG) ; Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) (UNS) ; COMUE Université Côte d'Azur (2015-2019) (COMUE UCA)-COMUE Université Côte d'Azur (2015-2019) (COMUE UCA)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Côte d'Azur (UCA)
- European Project: 730497,NAIAD
Description
The Brague River basin (68 km 2 ) is located on the French Mediterranean coast. It experiences a high risk of flash floods. The potential efficacy and efficiency of flood protection strategies based on green (Nature Based Solutions: NBS) or grey (civil-engineering) measures, as well as their co-benefits, are studied in this chapter. Two NBS flood alleviation strategies combine both small natural water retention areas, along with a widening of the river corridor. Two more classical grey scenarios were based on large wood-trapping racks, and another based on retention dams. This chapter synthesizes (i) the flood risk assessment; (ii) the estimation of total costs; (iii) how benefits related to each strategy were estimated. Benefits were evaluated with both a top-down method (avoided damages and transfer of valuations made elsewhere for co-benefits) and with a bottom-up approach surveying citizen willingness to pay. The cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that costs are higher than the avoided damage, and that co-benefits are much higher than avoided damage for most strategies and for both approaches. Depending on the number of household considered in the co-benefits valuation, the balance may reach higher benefits than costs for NBS strategies, though not for the grey solution based on large dams.
Abstract
International audienceAdditional details
Identifiers
- URL
- https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04096126
- URN
- urn:oai:HAL:hal-04096126v1
Origin repository
- Origin repository
- UNICA