Flood Risk Assessments for Rural Areas of Low- and Middle-income Countries 2007-2026
Description
Between 2000 and 2018, floods accounted for 23 per cent of damage from all natural disasters. At the time, 89 per cent of the population at risk lived in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the resources mobilised through Official Development Assistance (ODA) and technological innovations, loss and damage (L&D) has not decreased. We hypothesise that reductions in L&D depend on resources invested in flood prevention and preparedness, as well as on the alignment of Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs) with risk management plans. According to ISO 30010 Risk management – risk assessment techniques (2009), the FRA constitutes the initial phase of risk management. It should establish the level of risk and, subsequently, assess the possibility of reducing it by identifying potential measures. The FRA precedes and should be coordinated with the final phase of risk treatment. The United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 states that, to reduce risk, FRAs must be mainstreamed into local planning. This dataset covers 164 FRAs in predominantly rural areas in 36 LMICs, published between 2007 and 2026. The dataset focuses on the quality of the data, information and flood knowledge of the 164 FRAs. Data quality relates to (i) accessibility, (ii) availability, (iii) completeness, (iv) precision and (v) accuracy. Information quality relates to (vi) fitness for purpose. The quality of the knowledge-building process takes into account (vii) the participation of communities exposed to flooding. These seven characteristics are derived from ISO 25024 – Measurement of data quality (2015). For FRAs carried out with public funds, the OECD (2007) and the FAIR principles define compliance: Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability (2020). Data, information, and process quality are paramount for local plans that coordinate flood risk reduction measures. The dataset contains 15 tables: S1. ODA broken down into prevention, reconstruction, relief and rehabilitation, and emergency response, 2000 - 2024 S2. Key reviews of FRAs conducted, 2014 - 2026 S3. List of the 164 FRAs with links to download them S4. Types of plans for rural jurisdictions containing flood risk reduction measures S5. Input required for the plans that the FRAs should provide S6. Extension of regions studied by the 164 FRAs S7. Accessibility of supplementary material provided by the FRAs S8. Content of the supplementary material S9. Outputs of the FRAs S10. Risk management measures recommended by the FRAs S11. Risk treatment strategies rcommended by the 164 FRAs S12. Completeness and precision of the FRAs S13. Accuracy of the FRAs S14. Field surveys carried out by the FRAs S15. Flood knowledge-building process followed by the FRAs The data show a sharp rise in the use of FRAs from 2023 onwards. The FRAs content is of limited use for risk management because of limited data and information quality and involvement of the communities at risk.
Files
Steps to reproduce
We collected data by searching Scopus and Google Scholar using the keyword ‘River flood risk assessment’ in English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese, as it appeared in the title, keywords, or abstract of articles in both databases. The period under investigation ran from January 2007 to September 2026. We excluded articles relating solely to urban areas, those requiring a subscription, and those lacking flood risk maps. For each FRA, seven characteristics were subsequently considered: 1. Accessibility. Presence in the article of a link to a repository from which the data used can be accessed. Specification of the use of public funds to conduct the assessment. 2. Availability. Data downloadable from the link provided. 3. Completeness. Metadata is present; buildings and the population at risk are identified; flood depth, flood arrival time, and risk reduction measures are included. 4. Accuracy. Search within the text for keywords such as ‘Population’, ‘Land Cover’ and ‘DEM’ to ascertain their resolution. Analyse the maps to verify the presence of landmarks such as roads and settlements, administrative boundaries, and the location of measures. Analysis of tables to verify the quantification of measures. 5. Accuracy. Ground truth, ground control points, bathymetry, identification of exposed infrastructure and buildings, land use–land cover resolution and validation, asset value. 6. Fitting to purpose. Map scale and prioritisation of risk reduction measures. 7. Knowledge building. Role of exposed communities in the FRA preparation process. The dataset is supplemented by • ODA 2000–2024, as provided by the OECD Data Explorer, DAC5: Aid (ODA) by sector and provider. • FRA reviews published between 2014 and 2026.
Institutions
- Politecnico di TorinoPiedmont, Turin