IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00493184.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

La méthode Inondabilité : appropriation par les hydrologues de la vulnérabilité dans le diagnostic sur le risque d'inondation

Author

Listed:
  • Michel Lang

    (UR HHLY - Hydrologie-Hydraulique - IRSTEA - Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture)

  • Bernard Chastan

    (UR HHLY - Hydrologie-Hydraulique - IRSTEA - Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture)

  • Frédéric Grelot

    (UMR G-EAU - Gestion de l'Eau, Acteurs, Usages - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - AgroParisTech - CEMAGREF - Centre national du machinisme agricole, du génie rural, des eaux et forêts - IRD [Occitanie] - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - CIHEAM-IAMM - Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier - CIHEAM - Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes)

Abstract

La méthode Inondabilité a été développée dans les années 1990 par le Cemagref pour disposer d'un outil d'évaluation du risque d'inondation à l'échelle du bassin versant et proposer un cadre de négociation sur la notion de risque acceptable. Elle repose sur l'idée d'exprimer aléa (intensité physique du phénomène naturel) et vulnérabilité (sensibilité d'un usage du sol aux inondations) avec une même unité hydrologique, la période de retour. Pour l'aléa, il s'agit de la période de retour de la première crue inondante. Pour la vulnérabilité, l'usager indique le niveau de protection souhaité en terme de période de retour, le corollaire étant qu'il accepte ou tolère d'être inondé par des crues plus importantes. Après un rappel sur les principes de la méthode Inondabilité, nous présentons une discussion sur la définition hydrologique de la vulnérabilité, et un travail complémentaire effectué sur l'évaluation économique du consentement à payer pour bénéficier de mesures de protection contre les inondations. / The Inondabilite method has been developed in the nineties by Cemagref as a tool for flood risk assessment at a basin scale. The main idea was to propose a framework of negotiation on acceptable flood risk. Both components, flood hazard and flood vulnerabilty were defined as a return period, the former being related to the first overflowing event, the latter being related to the expected level of protection. After a presentation on the Inondabilite framework, a discussion gives the advantages and limitations of such hydrological assessment of flood vulnerability. A complementary work is presented on the economical assessment of the willingness of population to pay for flood risk mitigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel Lang & Bernard Chastan & Frédéric Grelot, 2009. "La méthode Inondabilité : appropriation par les hydrologues de la vulnérabilité dans le diagnostic sur le risque d'inondation," Post-Print hal-00493184, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00493184
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00493184v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00493184v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonard Shabman & Kurt Stephenson, 1996. "Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 433-449.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Magdalena Joanna Hędrzak & Elżbieta Badach & Sławomir Adam Kornaś, 2021. "Preliminary Assumptions for Identification of the Common Hamster ( Cricetus cricetus ) as a Service Provider in the Agricultural Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Allan Beltrán & David Maddison & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Benefits of Flood Defenses: A Repeat‐Sales Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2340-2367, November.
    3. Gowan, Charles & Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2006. "The role of ecosystem valuation in environmental decision making: Hydropower relicensing and dam removal on the Elwha River," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 508-523, April.
    4. Schilizzi, Steven, 1999. "Deciding between development and preservation of a natural asset: a way out of the impasse?," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 124547, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Schmid, A. Allan, 2004. "Economic Analysis And Efficiency In Public Expenditure," Staff Paper Series 11776, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    6. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    7. Romina Cavatassi, 2004. "Valuation Methods for Environmental Benefits in Forestry and Watershed Investment Projects," Working Papers 04-01, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
    8. Alicia N. Rambaldi & Cameron S. Fletcher & Kerry Collins & Ryan R.J. McAllister, 2013. "Housing Shadow Prices in an Inundation-prone Suburb," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(9), pages 1889-1905, July.
    9. Van Lantz & Ryan Trenholm & Jeff Wilson & William Richards, 2012. "Assessing market and non-market costs of freshwater flooding due to climate change in the community of Fredericton, Eastern Canada," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 347-372, January.
    10. Filatova, Tatiana & Parker, Dawn Cassandra & van der Veen, Anne, 2011. "The Implications of Skewed Risk Perception for a Dutch Coastal Land Market: Insights from an Agent-Based Computational Economics Model," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(3), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe & Polasky, Stephen & Gainutdinova, Olesya, 2003. "Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 261-277, June.
    12. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    13. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    14. Premachandra Wattage & John Soussan, 2003. "Incorporating Environmental Value and Externality in Project Evaluation as a Sustainability Indicator to evaluate Bangladesh Water Development," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 17(6), pages 429-446, December.
    15. Felix Schlapfer & Anna Roschewitz & Nick Hanley, "undated". "Contingent valuation and real referendum behaviour," Working Papers 2001_8, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    16. David E. Clark & Robert Griffin & Vladimir Novoty, 2005. "Assessing the Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Urban Flood Control: The Role of Locational, Demographic and attitudinal Factors," Working Papers and Research 0503, Marquette University, Center for Global and Economic Studies and Department of Economics.
    17. Guofang Zhai & Saburo Ikeda, 2006. "Flood Risk Acceptability and Economic Value of Evacuation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 683-694, June.
    18. Guofang Zhai & Takeshi Suzuki, 2008. "Effects of Risk Representation and Scope on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risks: Evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 513-522, April.
    19. Kousky, Carolyn & Shabman, Leonard, 2015. "Understanding Flood Risk Decisionmaking: Implications for Flood Risk Communication Program Design," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-01, Resources for the Future.
    20. Schlapfer, Felix & Roschewitz, Anna & Hanley, Nick, 2004. "Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 1-16, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00493184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.