Tufts team creates a portfolio of flood adaptation measures

Rising sea levels, increased precipitation, and severe storm events have all contributed to more frequent flooding. While flood research is a growing area of interest for many researchers, there is a lack of scholarship that compares adaptation methods to one another. A Tufts trio in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering recently published a paper in Nature Communications Earth & Environment that reviews and synthesizes over a century of flood mitigation strategies. First author and Ph.D. student Mahammed Azhar, undergraduate student Bergen Kane, and Professor and Berger Chair Farshid Vahedifard explored flood adaptation methods and discussed potential future solutions.

In their paper, “Comprehensive portfolio of adaptation measures to safeguard against evolving flood risks in a changing climate,” the group evaluated 39 different flood adaptation measures spanning from the early 20^th century to today. They examined the unique benefits, drawbacks, and impacts of each method. Their work traces the history of flood mitigation to help inform resilient future responses. 

Each method was sorted into one of four broad categories: infrastructural/technological, institutional, behavioral/cultural, or nature-based measures. Infrastructural methods encompass dams, flood walls, and other built solutions. These methods were more common in the early days of flood management. As time went on, nature-based tactics such as wetland restoration grew in popularity. Institutional methods revolve around creating flood-related policies and emergency management systems. In recent years, behavioral/cultural solutions have gained traction, involving community members in prevention planning and public education.

According to the researchers, future solutions should strive to be “socially just, technically sound, and economically feasible.” Their review makes clear that a single approach will likely not be sufficient against growing threats. Instead, they suggested an amalgamation of different strategies. Supplementing one method’s weaknesses with another method’s complementary strengths offers a promising path forward. They also highlighted the need for interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, lawmakers, and community organizations to create the most effective responses.

Stepping back to take a broader overview of historical efforts gave the authors insight into knowledge gaps that researchers could pursue in the future. Among their findings, the authors identified a need for more coordinated policy and noted a lack of consistency in defining risk thresholds and tipping points. While they see potential in artificial intelligence, they emphasize that more work must be done to effectively utilize emerging technologies for flood risk management. Ultimately, their findings provide useful information that stakeholders can use to optimize current flood mitigation efforts with an eye towards areas for future improvement and further research.