1 INTRODUCING FLOOD RESILIENCE

Flood resilience is increasingly discussed in academia and practice as a complement to existing flood risk management approaches (Fekete, Hartmann, & Jüpner 2020). It is seen as a promising concept to deal with increasingly severe consequences of climate change in general, and with increasing flood risk in particular. The debate on flood resilience is linked to the paradigm shift from flood protection to risk management, which started in Europe after the major river flood events in 1993 and 1995 along the river Rhine (Hartmann, 2012), and has developed over the past decades—pushed by further major fluvial and pluvial flood events (Begum, Stive, & Hall, 2007; Hartmann & Juepner, 2014; Klijn, Samuels, & van Os, 2008; Patt & Jüpner, 2020).

However, in flood risk management, the academic debate on resilience is only in its infancy (Jüpner et al., 2018; Vis, Klijn, Bruijn, & Buuren, 2003). Many different definitions exist (Disse, Johnson, Leandro, & Hartmann, 2020). Especially when it comes to specific implementation of resilience, the vagueness of the concept—which is sometimes described as one of its strengths (Baggio, Brown, & Hellebrandt, 2015; Brand & Jax, 2007)—can present a problem. How to design a resilient hydraulic infrastructure? This question has not only technical but also concerned with financial and legal aspects. This becomes more complicated when individual protection measures are put in a context of a larger system, such as a city or a region. When and how is a system such as a city or a region resilient, and how does one measure resilience? These questions are important, not only for construction but also for legal (such as liabilities), financial (budgetary), and political reasons. In other words, resilience is not (yet) a ready‐to‐use concept in flood risk management.

Resilience challenges presumptions of traditional flood risk management in many ways. Resilience implies that more and different stakeholders and actors will be involved in flood risk management than before, such as landowners or spatial planners. Hitherto, flood risk management has been and still is mainly the domain of water management (Hartmann & Driessen, 2017), although the prevalence of the traditional civil engineering approach has been questioned before (van den Brink, 2009). This change is not positive for all actors—affected homeowners, but also city planners or mayors now must deal with questions that were previously outside of their realm of competence and responsibility.

From a flood risk management perspective, many questions arise, such as: How does resilience add to and change the existing flood risk management system? How can resilience contribute to a more effective and efficient flood risk management approach? What are the specific advantages of integrating resilience in flood risk management? How can resilience be measured and quantified? Which parameters are most relevant? This special collection brings together contributions from different disciplines that address the specific challenges of implementing resilience in flood risk management.

The special collection takes the European debate as a starting point. The European Floods Directive from 2007 (2007/EC/60) pushed the debate on flood risk management and resilience in Europe. This Directive established a legal frame on how countries in the European Union have to deal with flood risk for the first time (Hartmann & Jüpner, 2014). At the same time, the shift toward a risk‐based approach raised questions such as “what can happen?” “what must not happen?” and “which security level can be realized at which costs?” Ultimately, flood risk management replaces the paradigm of complete protection against floods with the idea of managing the risk (Grünewald, 2005). This makes approaches to resilience and the reduction of damage potential (vulnerabilities)—not only for river floods but also for pluvial rainfall—important.

中文翻译：

---

在洪水风险管理中实施抵御能力

1引入防灾能力

水灾恢复力是在学术界和实践中越来越讨论，以补充现有的洪水风险管理办法（菲克特，哈特曼和Jüpner 2020）。人们普遍认为，应对气候变化日益严重的后果，尤其是应对洪水风险的增加，是一个很有前途的概念。关于防洪能力的争论与从防洪到风险管理的模式转变有关，这种转变始于1993年和1995年沿莱茵河的重大河洪事件之后的欧洲（Hartmann，2012年），并且在过去几十年中得到了发展：受到进一步重大河道和暴雨洪水的推动（Begum，Stive，＆Hall，2007 ; Hartmann＆Juepner，2014 ; Klijn，Samuels，＆van Os，2008; Patt＆Jüpner，2020年）。

但是，在洪水风险管理中，关于抵御能力的学术辩论仅在其初期阶段（Jüpner等人，2018年; Vis，Klijn，Bruijn和Buuren，2003年）。存在许多不同的定义（Disse，Johnson，Leandro和Hartmann，2020年）。特别是在弹性的具体实现方面，概念的模糊性有时被描述为其优势之一（Baggio，Brown和Hellebrandt，2015年； Brand和Jax，2007年））—可能会出现问题。如何设计弹性的水力基础设施？这个问题不仅涉及技术问题，而且涉及财务和法律方面。当在较大的系统（例如城市或区域）的环境中采取个人保护措施时，情况将变得更加复杂。诸如城市或区域之类的系统何时何地具有弹性，以及如何衡量弹性？这些问题很重要，不仅对于建设，而且对于法律（例如负债），财务（预算）和政治原因也很重要。换句话说，在洪水风险管理中，复原力还不是现成的概念。

复原力从许多方面挑战了传统洪水风险管理的假设。复原力意味着与以往相比，更多和不同的利益相关者和参与者将参与洪水风险管理，例如土地所有者或空间规划师。迄今为止，洪水风险管理一直是并且仍然主要是水管理领域（Hartmann＆Driessen，2017年），尽管传统的土木工程方法的普遍性以前已经受到质疑（van den Brink，2009年）。这种变化对所有行为者都是不利的-受影响的房主，但城市规划者或市长现在也必须处理其能力和责任范围之外的问题。

从洪水风险管理的角度来看，会出现许多问题，例如：弹性如何增加和改变现有的洪水风险管理系统？复原力如何有助于更有效，更有效的洪水风险管理方法？将防灾能力纳入洪水风险管理的具体优势是什么？弹性如何测量和量化？哪些参数最相关？该专题集汇集了来自不同学科的贡献，以应对在洪水风险管理中实施抵御力的特定挑战。

特别收藏以欧洲辩论为起点。2007年的《欧洲洪水指令》（2007 / EC / 60）引发了有关欧洲洪水风险管理和弹性的辩论。该指令为欧盟国家首次应对洪水风险建立了法律框架（Hartmann＆Jüpner，2014年）。同时，向基于风险的方法的转变引发了诸如“会发生什么？”之类的问题。“绝不能发生什么？” 和“可以用哪些成本实现哪种安全级别？” 最终，洪水风险管理以管理风险的思想代替了完全防御洪水的范式（Grünewald，2005年）。）。这不仅对于河流洪水而且对于小雨都具有重要的抵御能力和减少潜在损害（脆弱性）的方法。