Conventional flood control has emphasized structural measures such as levees, reservoirs, and engineered channels—measures that typically simplify river channels and cut them off from their floodplain, both with adverse environmental consequences. Structural measures tend to be rigid and not easily adapted to increased flooding regimes resulting from environmental change. Such actions also limit the natural hydrologic benefits of floodplains such as storing floodwaters, improving water quality, providing habitat for invertebrates and fish during periods of inundation, and supporting a multitude of cultural services. As these benefits are more widely recognized, policies are being adopted to encourage projects that reduce flood risks and restore floodplain ecosystems, while acknowledging the social-ecological context. The number of such projects, however, remains small. We assessed four multi-benefit floodplain projects (two in California, United States, and two in Germany) and characterized their drivers, history, and measures implemented. In both United States cases, the dominant driver behind the project was flood risk reduction, and ecosystem restoration followed, in one case inadvertently, in the other as a requirement to receive a subsidy for a flood risk reduction project. One German case was motivated by ecosystem restoration, but it was more widely accepted because it also offered flood management benefits. The fourth case was conceived in terms of balanced goals of flood risk reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation. We conclude that projects that both reduce flood risk and restore ecosystems are clearly possible and often cost-effective, and that they could be more widely implemented. The principal barriers are often institutional and regulatory, rather than technical.

In many countries of the Global South, aquatic ecosystems such as streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands are severely impacted by several simultaneous environmental stressors, associated with accelerated urban development, and extreme climate. However, this problem receives little attention. Applying a DPSIR approach (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses), we analyzed the environmental impacts and their effects on urban hydrosystems (including stagnant waters), and suggest possible solutions from a series of case studies worldwide. We find that rivers in the Global South, with their distinctive geographical and socio-political setting, display significant differences from the Urban Stream Syndrome described so far in temperate zones. We introduce the term of ‘Southern Urban Hydrosystem Syndrome’ for the biophysical problems as well as the social interactions, including the perception of water bodies by the urbanites, the interactions of actors (e.g., top-down, bottom-up), and the motivations that drive urban hydrosystem restoration projects of the Global South. Supported by a synthesis of case studies (with a focus on Brazilian restoration projects), this paper summarizes the state of the art, highlights the currently existing lacunae for research, and delivers examples of practical solutions that may inform UNESCO’s North–South–South dialogue to solve these urgent problems. Two elements appear to be specifically important for the success of restoration projects in the Global South, namely the broad acceptance and commitment of local populations beyond merely ‘ecological’ justifications, e.g., healthy living environments and ecosystems with cultural linkages (‘River Culture’). To make it possible implementable/practical solutions must be extended to (often poor) people having settled along river banks and wetlands.

Although hydraulic infrastructure such as levees remain important for flood risk management in the USA, France, and Quebec (Canada), there is increasing emphasis on nonstructural measures, such as regulatory flood maps, to reduce exposure and vulnerability, for example, preventing people from building in high hazard areas. One key concept related to areas protected by levees is that of “residual risk”, that is, the risk from floods greater than the design standard of the levees (levee overtopping) and from levee breach. In this article, we review the legislative framework for regulatory flood maps in the USA, France, and Quebec (Canada) and compare how residual risk behind protective structures is taken into account (or not) in regulatory flood maps. We find big differences in how the USA, France and Canada manage residual risk behind the levees. While in France the area behind levees is part of the regulatory flood prone area, and land use restrictions, building codes, emergency measures and risk communication are mandatory, in the USA the area behind levees is only shown as part of the regulatory flood prone area if the levee is not accredited. In Quebec, regulatory flood maps in general follow the French approach with a few exceptions.

Rivers are the lifeblood of many cities, but flood risk is projected to increase due to urbanisation and climate change. Better floodplain management in and near urban areas is required to produce the New Urban Agenda’s ‘just, safe, healthy, accessible, affordable, resilient and sustainable cities’. Many jurisdictions are looking to move or keep people out of human-constructed residential ‘niches’ on hazardous floodplains, but this has proved difficult to achieve. Our historical case studies of colonial societies in ancient Rome, as well as on the Yangtze, Mississippi and Brisbane rivers, show the deep roots of many contemporary flood risk issues, such as failures of risk perception related to recent settlement, the moral hazard of spending on flood defence infrastructure, the creeping nature of floodplain encroachment into ‘niches’ of perceived protection created by structural interventions, the need for a central, ‘whole of river’ approach, and the difficulties of implementing this approach locally. These case studies also suggest solutions, including the adoption of Indigenous perspectives, benefits to incentivise local actors and a historical education strategy to increase appetite for more sustainable flood risk mitigation.

Historical information about floods is not commonly used in the US to inform land use planning decisions. Rather, the current approach to managing floods is based on static maps derived from computer simulations of the area inundated by floods of specified return intervals. These maps provide some information about flood hazard, but they do not reflect the underlying processes involved in creating a flood disaster, which typically include increased exposure due to building on flood-prone land, nor do they account for the greater hazard resulting from wildfire. We developed and applied an approach to analyze how exposure has evolved in flood hazard zones in Montecito, California, an area devastated by post-fire debris flows in January 2018. By combining historical flood records of the past 200 years, human development records of the past 100 years, and geomorphological understanding of debris flow generation processes, this approach allows us to look at risk as a dynamic process influenced by physical and human factors, instead of a static map. Results show that floods after fires, in particular debris flows and debris laden floods, are very common in Montecito (15 events in the last 200 years), and that despite policies discouraging developments in hazard areas, developments in hazard zones have increased substantially since Montecito joined the National Flood Insurance Program in 1979. We also highlight the limitation of using conventional Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to manage land use in alluvial fan areas such as Montecito. The knowledge produced in this project can help Montecito residents better understand how they came to be vulnerable to floods and identify action they are taking now that might increase or reduce their vulnerability to the next big flood. This science-history-centric approach to understand hazard and exposure evolution using geographic information systems (GIS) and historical records, is generalizable to other communities seeking to better understand the nature of the hazard they are exposed to and some of the root causes of their vulnerabilities, in other words, both the natural and social processes producing disasters.