water
Article
Instant Flood Risk Modelling (Inform) Tool for Co-Design of
Flood Risk Management Strategies with Stakeholders in Can
Tho City, Vietnam
Hieu Ngo 1,2, *, Mohanasundar Radhakrishnan 1 , Roshanka Ranasinghe 1,3,4 , Assela Pathirana 1
and Chris Zevenbergen 1,2
1
2
3
4
*
Citation: Ngo, H.; Radhakrishnan, M.;
Ranasinghe, R.; Pathirana, A.;
Zevenbergen, C. Instant Flood Risk
Modelling (Inform) Tool for
Co-Design of Flood Risk
Management Strategies with
Stakeholders in Can Tho City,
Vietnam. Water 2021, 13, 3131.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213131
Academic Editor: Pankaj Kumar
Received: 10 October 2021
Accepted: 4 November 2021
Published: 6 November 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
Department of Coastal and Urban Risk and Risk Resilience, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education,
P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft, The Netherlands; m.radhakrishnan@un-ihe.org (M.R.);
r.ranasinghe@un-ihe.org (R.R.); a.pathirana@un-ihe.org (A.P.); c.zevenbergen@un-ihe.org (C.Z.)
Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
Department of Water Engineering and Management, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217,
7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
Harbour, Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Deltares, P.O. Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlands
Correspondence: h.ngo@un-ihe.org; Tel.: +31-687699329
Abstract: Flood risk reduction strategies play an important role in flood risk management (FRM)
and these strategies are being co-designed with the engagement of the stakeholder through multiple
consultations and co-designing sessions. Effective participation of stakeholders in interactive work
sessions requires fast and accurate modeling systems with a user-friendly interface, which can
simulate the impact due to various flood reduction measures selected by the stakeholders and also
generate outputs that can be understood by all stakeholders, especially those who are not FRM
specialists. Presenting an easy-to-understand tool with easy inputs and outputs for a variety of
stakeholders and at the same time providing reliable and accurate results for a range of scenarios and
interventions is a challenge. Seven requirements that are essential for a user-friendly flood risk tool
were used to develop an instant flood risk modeling tool. This paper presents a web-based hydraulic
tool, i.e., instant flood risk model (Inform), to support FRM in the urban center of Can Tho city (Ninh
Kieu district), Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Inform was developed based on (i) a simplified 1D model for
the entire Mekong Delta; and (ii) flood hazard and damage maps, and estimated flood damage for
Ninh Kieu district in Can Tho city obtained directly from the 1D/2D coupled model for Ninh Kieu
district. Inform rapidly generates flood levels, flood hazard and damage maps, estimated damages.
Pilot testing with experts confirmed that Inform qualifies as a reliable co-design tool for developing
FRM strategies as it features an inbuilt input library, comprises flexible options, easy to use, produces
quick results and has a user-friendly interface. With the help of an interactive web-based tool such as
Inform presented here, it is possible to co-design FRM strategies for Can Tho or any other city that is
subject to flood risk.
Keywords: flood risk management; web-based tool; Mekong Delta; Can Tho city
iations.
1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Flooding is one of the most frequently occurring and damaging natural disasters
worldwide [1–6]. Approximate 250 million people in the world are affected by floods every
year [7], and the annual average economic losses have exceeded 40 billion USD in recent
years [8]. Developing flood risk reduction strategies to minimize damage caused by floods
is the primary objective of any FRM strategy. Collaborative learning and designing among
stakeholders are an increasing trend in local FRM [9–11]. The importance of stakeholder
engagement (e.g., citizens and interest groups, businesses, officials, and decision-makers) in
the selection and implementation of flood risk reduction measures is widely acknowledged.
Water 2021, 13, 3131. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213131
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water
Water 2021, 13, 3131
2 of 16
Stakeholders are also increasingly involved in the design phase of measures supported
by user-friendly flood risk models, such as in the Dutch Room for the River program [12].
The effectiveness and success of co-designing sessions have been demonstrated by the
Blokkendoos tool [13,14] used within the Room for the River program in the Netherlands. In
interactive sessions supported by the Blokkendoos tool, stakeholders participated in the
design process using ‘what-if scenarios’ to explore the impact of various interventions on
the flood level as well as the flood risk in the study area, which allowed them to prioritize
interventions and to engage in an inclusive decision-making process.
Effective participation of stakeholders in interactive work sessions requires a fast and
accurate modeling system with a user-friendly interface, which can simulate the user’s
interventions to provide outputs that can be understood by all stakeholders, especially
those who are non-FRM specialists. These features have been identified as the most
sought-after attributes of flood simulation models to support practitioners in flood disaster
management [15].
This paper presents an interactive, web-based tool, Inform, which was developed
based on: (i) a simplified 1D model for the entire Mekong Delta; and (ii) flood hazard and
damage maps, as well as on estimated impacts (direct damage) for the urban center of Can
Tho city—Ninh Kieu district in Vietnam obtained directly from the 1D/2D coupled model
for Ninh Kieu district. Inform is designed with the aim of satisfying the above-mentioned
user requirements, allowing users to assess different scenarios and receive visual outputs
within one minute. Pilot testing with experts to evaluate the tool’s key features (e.g., user
interface, the effectiveness of the tool and its outputs) was conducted. For the evaluation,
seven criteria were used, which were extracted through an extensive review of literature on
interactive tools [15–30]. Inform is used here to demonstrate how it can be used to support
rapid flood risk assessment to facilitate a co-designing approach aiming at exploring,
identifying and selecting flood risk reduction measures for Ninh Kieu district with the
stakeholders’ participation.
The content of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the literature
review on the challenges of generating interactive tools to support FRM; addressing challenges using an interactive tool for Can Tho is presented in Section 3; pilot testing and
evaluation of Inform is presented in Section 4; followed by a discussion in Section 5; and
Section 6 presents conclusions of this paper.
2. Challenges in Creating Interactive Tools to Support FRM
Communicating the effectiveness of FRM interventions across stakeholders is imperative in co-designing FRM interventions. The effectiveness of FRM interventions is an
important strand of information that should be understood and easily be visualized. The
visualization can be in the form of a simple infographic or a detailed three-dimensional
real-life virtual tour of the FRM measures under consideration. There are freely available
tools in countries such as The Netherlands and UK, which give information on long-term
flood risk for an area, possible causes of flooding and how to manage flood risk [31,32]. Additionally, organizations such as Melbourne Water in Australia issue flood level certificates
that contain information about flood levels and the probability of occurrence of flooding
at the property level [33]. These are awareness creation or risk information dissemination
platforms that are meant to present expert domain knowledge in a form that the general
public can easily understand.
The common feature among all of the aforementioned online platforms and interactive
visualizations is that the entire process of hydraulic modeling is completed beforehand—
updated periodically—with or without the possible combination of FRM measures and
is stored in a database. Some online tools have an interactive front-end that allows the
user to select a postcode for which the flood risk and probability of flooding are retrieved
from the database and results are displayed instantly either in the form of a map or as text
(e.g., [31,32]). However, these tools do not have options for the user to perform ‘what-if
Water 2021, 13, 3131
3 of 16
scenarios’ to explore the impact of various interventions on the flooding level as well as
the flood risk in the study area.
Ideally, a platform should allow the user to change inputs such as river flow rate,
rainfall intensity, water level and FRM measures through an easy-to-use graphical user
interface (GUI); run a fast hydraulic model to determine the flood extents, duration and
depths; use this information for calculation of immediate risks such as flood damage
and long-term risks; and display the information in the form of online maps, tables and
graphics. These outputs should be understandable to stakeholders, especially those who
are non-FRM specialists. It must also be ensured that the tool is fast enough to perform
simulations of a variety of scenarios based on selected user inputs to assess the flood risk
reduction measures during a co-design work session. These are must-have features of
co-design tools identified from a number of stakeholder interviews [15]. Additionally, the
data preparation, processing and prerequisites have to be taken into account to develop an
online flood risk tool that can help generate the details that are needed to ensure common
understanding among various stakeholders during co-design work sessions.
The tool developers need to comply with a set of minimum requirements in order to
create a user-friendly flood risk tool. These requirements are as follows:
(1)
Ensuring reliability of tool outputs
The reliability of the tool is of utmost importance to the user [15]. Confidence in the
outputs of modeling tools is paramount for the uptake of the tool by various stakeholders.
For example, the user must have confidence that simulated flood depths and flood damages
in the tidal urban sub-catchment of the river are reliable.
(2)
Ease of use and avoiding input overkill
Differences often exist in the expertise and interest of stakeholders’ participating in
co-design work sessions [16–19]. These require that tool developers must have an understanding of the level of knowledge and information needs of potential users in order to
use the tool effectively. Questions such as “does the tool require the user to bring in data?”
and “should the user select all of the parameters to run the tool?” have to be considered by the
developers at the tool design stage. Lack of detailed knowledge of the (local) hydrological
context and technical aspects (for instance about the specifications of interventions), difficulties in understanding the instructions and cognitive loading should not provide an
impediment for a wide range of stakeholders to use the tool [20,21].
(3)
Time taken to generate tool outputs
Co-design work sessions typically last a few hours [22], therefore, they call for models
to be fast enough to provide multiple outcomes and foster iteration during a single work
session [15]. Questions such as “how long does the user need to spend on selecting the input
parameters and how long does the user have to wait to get the outcomes?” and “what is the
acceptable waiting time between the selection of inputs and the display of results?” have to be
considered in the development phase of the tool.
(4)
Transcending coarser and finer resolutions across spatial scales
A flood risk tool that allows the user to identify the flood risk and to assess the
effectiveness of adaptation actions across various locations and spatial scales will contribute
to the flood risk knowledge base of the various stakeholders active in the delta or catchment
area. This in turn offers conditions for collaboration and joint actions. The following
questions seem to be relevant in this context: Is the tool capable to simulate flooding
across spatial scales from a catchment of the size of the Mekong Delta and to an urban area
whereby the information (flood delineation and damages) provided has sufficient resolution
to support multi-level governance decision-making? For example, the knowledge of local
people (including their perceived vulnerability) on the effectiveness and feasibility of
adaptation actions they can take individually at the local scale or collaboratively at a larger
spatial scale may incentivize them to act and thus increase their ability to frame, understand
and influence their flood and climate change risks [23,24].
Water 2021, 13, 3131
4 of 16
(5)
Transcending coarser and finer resolutions across temporal scales
What are the time scales relevant for the tool? A tool which supports high-level
strategic decision making and can explore pathways to future flood protection, warrants to
simulate flooding and to compute flood damages covering a time horizon of at least 50 years
given the long lead times of large interventions. In addition, stakeholders’ engagement and
responses are influenced by how risk is presented, and the time factor is very important in
risk communication as there is a physiological distance or disconnect of long-term risks or
impacts such as climate risk [25,26]. Hence it is imperative to generate data to elucidate the
long-term potential impacts and the lead time of adaptation actions.
(6)
Interpretation and relevance of tool outputs across a wide spectrum of stakeholders
The tool outputs should support decision-making at the strategic policy planning
level, project planning and implementation level, and also at the operational level to create
awareness among the general public. It is of utmost importance that the stakeholder needs
are identified and what they actually want to know. Moreover, the stakeholders should
have the ability to interpret the outputs [27], which latter often requires guidance.
(7)
Assessing the effectiveness of FRM measures
Delivery of risk information without suitable actions to minimize or eliminate risk can
cause concern and anxiety among stakeholders [28,29]. How effective are the planned FRM
measures in reducing flood damages? Can the effectiveness of FRM initiatives at multiple
levels be assessed using the tool? For example, the effectiveness of FRM actions from
the Mekong Delta Plan [30] is crucial information at the strategic planning level, whereas
the effectiveness of retrofitting and elevating the floor level of houses as property level is
relevant information for the city committee and citizens.
Addressing the aforementioned challenges will provide the conditions required for
the development and acceptance of a useful flood risk gaming tool to support FRM. Some
of the challenges, such as reducing the waiting time can be resolved using computational
techniques. In contrast, challenges such as integration of FRM measures need to be dealt
with from the perspective of FRM planners, and challenges such as versatility need to be
understood from a human-machine interface perspective.
3. Instant Flood Risk Model (Inform) for Co-Designing FRM in Can Tho
The instant flood risk modeling tool (Inform) for Can Tho is an interactive web-based
tool that provides within a short time an estimate of flood water level at Can Tho. Inform
generates flood inundation (flood extent and inundation depth), flood damage maps,
and flood damage for Ninh Kieu district in Can Tho city corresponding to a single flood
event based on user-defined inputs (https://fg.srv.pathirana.net/; accessed on 5 October
2021) [34]. The underlying flood hazard and risk data are extracted from [35] while users
are provided with the option of testing how certain adaptation measures may affect the
flood hazard and/or risk. Inform covers the entire Mekong Delta, including Can Tho city
which has an important demographic and economic significance [36,37]. Screenshots of
inputs and outputs of the Inform are presented in Figure 1.
Inform addresses the identified user-requirement challenges encountered in developing an interactive FRM co-design tool and can be used in FRM domains such as strategic
planning, city administration, project implementation and community engagement in Can
Tho. The application of Inform in Can Tho and its compliance with the seven essential
requirements are explained below.
Water 2021, 13, 3131
5 of 16
Figure 1. Flood risk tool (Inform) for Can Tho—inputs and outputs.
(1)
Ensuring reliability of tool outputs
The background engine of Inform comprises: (i) a simplified, calibrated and validated
1D SWMM model for the entire Mekong Delta to calculate the water levels of the Mekong
River at Can Tho [38]; (ii) an output library comprising grid-level inundation depths
computed through 1D/2D coupled PCSWMM simulations and interpolation methods for
Ninh Kieu district of Can Tho city for a wide range of Mekong River water levels at Can
Tho; and, (iii) a grid level flood damage calculation model based on depth-damage curves
for the different type of assets in Ninh Kieu district.
Inform uses the modeled water levels at Can Tho to generate the flood hazard and
compute the associated flood damages. Reliability of the 1D/2D coupled flood model
results has been established by calibrating the model outputs against measured inundation
depths and flood extent at the study area during historical flood events [39].
Additionally, the input data for Inform including historical flood events at Kratie and
sea level data at the Mekong River mouths from 2000 to 2009 were collected from reliable
sources (e.g., Mekong River Commission, National Hydro-meteorological Service of Viet
Nam). Therefore, Inform can provide reliable outputs based on the user-defined inputs.
(2)
Ease of use and avoiding input overkill
The necessary input data for Inform is already processed and stored in a database.
Hence the user does not need to collect additional data, which avoids input overkill. From
the Inform database, the user selects only six input parameters through a graphical user
interface to generate the outputs. Two additional selections must be made in case if outputs
for FRM intervention are required. The user inputs to Inform, which are selected from the
existing database using a drop-down menu, and data ranges are:
(i)
upstream boundary condition of Mekong River at Kratie—i.e., flows at upstream
of TonleSap (Western flows) and river flows at Kratie in the Mekong River (Eastern
flows) and a scale factor to change the river flows. The scale factor is the ratio that the
user wants to change the original river flow. The scale factor is used when the user
wants to estimate the change in the river flow due to the effect of climate change to
Water 2021, 13, 3131
6 of 16
compute the resulting flood water level in Can Tho and the associated flood damage
in Ninh Kieu district in the future compared with the past flood event.
(ii) sea level at the Mekong River mouths, which are the downstream boundary condition
at East Sea—i.e., the diurnal variation of sea level for select dates from the drop-down
menu, phase change of diurnal variation (the phase change represents a future change
in the shape of sea level time series during a flood event, which can lead to changes in
the river water level in Can Tho and the resulting flood damage in Ninh Kieu district)
and increase in the amplitude of sea level (the change in amplitude represents a future
increase in sea-level rise due to the effect of climate change).
(iii) land subsidence at Can Tho, which reduces the elevation of the ground surface. As
a result, the inundation depth in Ninh Kieu district will increase when computing
flooding, resulting in an increase in flood damage.
(iv) FRM interventions—upstream interventions such as dams and reservoirs that can
reduce a certain percentage of river flow (input), and avoiding damages by controlling
land subsidence, where the rate of land subsidence and percentage reduction in land
subsidence are inputs. Upon selection of these inputs, the user can activate the
hydraulic models and flood damage calculation models with one click of the mouse.
(3)
Time taken to generate tool outputs
The time taken to make choices of the eight input parameters (six basic parameters
and two for FRM interventions) required for Inform is a few minutes, for a user conversant
with standard inputs to a hydraulic model. After these inputs are selected, it takes about
one minute for Inform to generate the following outputs: (i) the maximum water level in
the river and its timing at Can Tho; (ii) map showing the maximum flood depth in every
grid cell in Ninh Kieu district; (iii) the flood damage due to inundation in Can Tho in
million USD; (iv) map showing the damage in every grid cell due to inundation in Ninh
Kieu district in USD per square meter. A conversant user can get the outputs within 2 min,
including the input selection time, whereas for a beginner it would be between 5 to 10 min
depending on their level of knowledge with the input.
(4)
Transcending coarser and finer resolutions across spatial scales
The Inform output can help the strategic planners to determine optimal protection
levels for FRM infrastructure, preparedness measures for the study area and develop
appropriate policies to support FRM and strategize delta planning [40]. More specifically,
the river water level generates maximum inundation depths at grid level in the city center
(Figure 2) and will help identify the flood hazard in those grid cells, which would help the
determination of flooding hotspots. The flood hazard map can also help the city officials
to identify critical infrastructure and community at the risk of flood by overlaying the
inundation map on their critical infrastructure and demography GIS database. Grid level
flood hazard details from Inform can lead to the development of flood hazard ranking of
grid cells or community pockets, which is a vital piece of information to channelize relief
actions in the event of flooding. This will aid the city administration to contextualise the
flood risk problem in Can Tho and help planning, implementation and coordination of
FRM and relief measures in the near future or in the long term [41].
Inform calculates the total flood damage in the Ninh Kieu district for the selected river
flow—sea level combination, and the map illustrates the grid level flood damages in USD
per m2 (Figure 2). From this map, it can be inferred that the damages vary across the grids
in the Ninh Kieu district. At the coarser scale, the total flood damage information can be
useful for strategic delta planning as it can help policy-makers understand the impact of
flooding in monetary terms in the most populous city and the hub of economic activity in
the Mekong Delta. The total damages for different river flow—sea level combinations can
help the city administrators to establish the range of monetary loss due to the past events
and can help them prepare in terms of creating a reserve to compensate for future losses or
to start formulating plans for FRM interventions to avoid or minimize flood risk.
Water 2021, 13, 3131
7 of 16
Figure 2. The inundation map, flood damage map, and the estimated total flood damage due to the
flood event for the Ninh Kieu district, Can Tho city.
(5)
Transcending coarser and finer resolutions across temporal scales
The river flow data and sea level data in Inform tool contains actual data from past
events, which can generate historical flood events. However, what makes Inform interesting
is the scale factor that can be applied to the river flows and increase in sea level that
enables the user to make the changes to the historic data to explore ‘what if scenarios’
of present and future. The effect of climate change through the increase in sea level at
the Mekong estuary mouths and the river flows was clearly evident through different
future flood extents in Can Tho for a climate scenario such as the IPCC climate scenarios
Water 2021, 13, 3131
8 of 16
(i.e., RCPs). As mentioned earlier, the data for the Inform output library was obtained
through the 2D modeling of flood depths and extent for various levels of the Mekong River
level. The timing of occurrence of the plausible future water levels of the Mekong River
in various IPCC scenarios was obtained from discharge projections calculated by Hoang
et al. (2016) [42]. For example, with the help of Inform, the user can adjust the inputs to
compute what would be the estimated flood damage of an event that has a similar return
period of the flood event in the year 2000 flood if it occurs in 2050 under RCP4.5 or RCP8.5.
The flood in the year 2001 was a 1 in a 0.3-year event. In the future, due to the impact
of climate change, a 1 in the 0.3-year event would correspond to an increase in 20% of
upstream flows (compared to the year 2001 flood flow) together with a 0.2 m and 0.3 m
increase in downstream sea level, in the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, respectively. These changes
in river flows and sea levels can be given as inputs in Inform by using the scale-up/down
and increase in sea level options, and the corresponding river level and flood damages can
be obtained (Table 1).
Table 1. The maximum water level in Can Tho and estimated damage in the Ninh Kieu district for historical flood events in
2001 (1 in 0.3 years) and flood events of same return period reoccurring in 2050 based on user-defined inputs under RCP 4.5
climate scenarios and RCP 8.5.
Past
Selected Event
The 2001 flood event
(1 in 0.3 years)
2050 (RCP 4.5)
2050 (RCP 8.5)
Maximum
Water Level
(m)
Estimated
Damage
(Mil. USD)
Maximum
Water Level
(m)
Estimated
Damage
(Mil. USD)
Maximum
Water Level
(m)
Estimated
Damage
(Mil. USD)
1.75
2.53
1.99
4.70
2.07
7.72
Users with access to the river flow data, such as city council, irrigation department
and researchers can use the tool to create comparative information based on the Mekong
River water level for various return periods. For example, the flood extent in the year
2020 in Ninh Kieu district for a 1 in 100-year return period Mekong water level (2.15 m) is
12.7% (Figure 3). However, the flood extent in the year 2050 in Ninh Kieu district for a 1 in
100-year return period Mekong River water level was found to be 29.2% and 34.2%, under
RCP 4.5 (Figure 4) and RCP 8.5 (Figure 5) respectively.
Figure 3. Inundation map corresponding to 100-year return period water level at Can Tho in the year 2020.
Water 2021, 13, 3131
9 of 16
Figure 4. Inundation map corresponding to 100-year return period water level at Can Tho in the year
2050 under RCP 4.5.
Figure 5. Inundation map corresponding to 100-year return period water level at Can Tho in the year
2050 under RCP 8.5.
Thus, users from the planning and program formulation domain can easily relate the
inputs values to future conditions using the available information on climate change in
the Mekong Delta and create useful information from the outputs. This would also enable
the policymakers to explore strategic planning and policy narratives, such as adaption
pathways for Can Tho (e.g., [43]) to adapt to changing climate and mitigate these risks.
Water 2021, 13, 3131
10 of 16
(6)
Interpretation and relevance of outputs across a wide spectrum of stakeholders
Inundation depth at the grid level and the water level of the Mekong River at Can Tho
are useful information and when considered together allow the various stakeholders to understand the interdependencies of interventions taken at the various spatial scales. Hence,
this information will raise awareness amongst the various stakeholders to collaborate and
to identify the challenges and opportunities of interventions taken at the delta level, city
level, neighborhood level and property level [44]. The outcome will result in more inclusive
and likely new perspectives on FRM in the area. This future flood risk information can be
used by strategic planners to formulate delta policies and directives to guide strategic goal
setting, future planning and implementation of effective flood mitigation measures in the
Mekong Delta.
Similarly, users from the city administration can use future floodwater depth hazard
information to ascertain the vulnerability of communities across socio-economic divides
and threats to critical infrastructure. This future quantitative information can also be used
in public outreach initiatives, such as “Swamped in Melbourne” [45], to create awareness
among communities as informed citizenry would be willing to cooperate with other
stakeholders toward reduction of flood risk.
Like in most other flooding contexts, floods in Can Tho affect the urban poor and
economically weaker sections in the city [46,47]. By overlaying demographical data on
the computed flood damages, the impact and vulnerability of different social strata can be
determined by the city planners. According to Chinh et al. (2016) [47], the average damage
due to the year 2011 flood event at every household was about USD 333/-, whereas
the average monthly income of a vulnerable household was USD 185/-. This means
these households lose two months of income to floods and have to spend money on
their economic recovery as well. Inform can be further updated by integrating gridlevel demographic and socio-economic data to generate the community-specific economic
impact and vulnerability maps without any additional input efforts from the user. Such
information can help the city administrators to develop location-specific socio-economic
interventions, such as providing grants, subsidies, or soft loans for the vulnerable lowincome households to flood-proof their houses [48]; and also to assess the ripple effect of
interventions within the neighborhood.
With Inform outputs, city administration officials in Can Tho would be able to combine
flood hazard information with the socio-economic profile at those grids and ascertain the
vulnerability at those grids [49]. Vulnerability assessment can help the city administration
draft targeted awareness campaigns and preparedness measures together with the local
communities and disaster relief agencies such as National Red Cross societies. Upon
availability of grid-level socio-economic data and infrastructure data, the Inform can be
updated to generate a critical infrastructure index and vulnerability map without any
additional input efforts from the user.
(7)
Assessing the effectiveness of FRM measures
The two interventions built into Inform represent the delta- or basin-scale action (i.e.,
reduction in river flow) and the local action at city scale or neighborhood scale (i.e., arresting
land subsidence). This information on the effectiveness of the FRM measures can be used
by regional- and city-level stakeholders to plan FRM measures. Long term risk-informed
perspective enables planners to explore and select adaptation pathways (sequences of
measures in time) required to minimize flood risk for different scenarios. These measures
encompass (amongst others) changing street profiles, land use planning and zoning based
on recommendations such as EEA (2016) [50].
4. Pilot Testing and Evaluation of Inform
Inform outputs can be used to create authentic quantitative information (e.g., flood water level, flood hazard and damage maps, as well as estimated food damage corresponding
to each flood event) to inform, explore and strategize with several stakeholders through
Water 2021, 13, 3131
11 of 16
the process of collaboration, critical thinking and creativity. This can lead to outcomes,
such as awareness, validation, trust, policies, innovations and futuristic planning, etc.
Inform is aimed at supporting rapid flood risk assessment and facilitating a co-designing
approach to explore, identify and select flood risk reduction measures with stakeholders’
participation. In order to test and evaluate the tool, a multi-stakeholder co-design meeting
was planned as part of the development process. However, due to travel restrictions
associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, this co-design meeting in Can Tho did not take
place. Hence, a pilot test of the Inform tool was conducted with experts. These participants
served as potential stakeholders to mimic the co-design work sessions and were asked to
use the online Inform tool. These experts based on their use of the tool and the inputs and
outputs generated within the framework of this study for Can Tho to evaluate Inform. The
participants were requested to evaluate the tool using seven criteria (Sections 2 and 3) and
suggest improvements for each criterion.
Nine experts participated in the pilot testing, including six senior experts and three
PhD researchers covering a range of disciplines such as River Engineering and Water
Governance, Hydrology and Water Resource Management, Hydraulic Engineering, Hydroinformatics and Numerical Ocean Modelling.
Each expert received a user manual along with the tool and was requested to send
their feedback in writing. The summarised feedback is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of participants’ feedback and suggestions for improving the Inform tool.
No.
Criteria
Participants’ Feedback
-
1
Ensuring reliability
of tool outputs
-
2
3
Ease of use and
avoiding
input overkill
-
4
7 participants said that the tool is
easy to use with the friendly-user
interface.
1 participant said that it is moderate.
1 participant did not evaluate
this criterion.
-
-
-
-
-
Adding a link/info box with information for users
(e.g., the origin of the input parameters (discharge,
sea level), the tool calibration and validation).
Adding a comparison feature allows the user to see
the output of two consecutive selections at once
instead of resetting the system.
Increasing the size and resolution of maps.
Collecting more recent data (discharge, sea level).
Adding units of flow, sea level in the
respective graphs.
Adjusting the tool to ensure that when selecting an
input parameter (e.g., discharge) for a specific year
the other one (e.g., sea level) should change
automatically for the same year.
Creating three or four pre-programmed scenarios.
Creating an additional Vietnamese version of the tool
All participants said that the tool is
rapid in generating the outputs.
Time taken to
generate tool outputs
Transcending coarser
and finer resolutions
across spatial scales
7 participants said that it is
difficult to evaluate the tool
outputs’ reliability due to lacking
information related to the input
data, calibration and validation of
the tool.
2 participants said that the tool’s
outputs are coherent with the
selected input data.
Participants Suggestions to Improve the Tool
-
3 participants said that the spatial
scales is fine.
2 participants said that it was a
lack of information for evaluation.
4 participants did not evaluate
this criterion.
-
Adding necessary information such as database or
journal links or info box for the user to understand
about this criterion, including the meaning and
purpose of this criterion.
Water 2021, 13, 3131
12 of 16
Table 2. Cont.
No.
Criteria
Participants’ Feedback
-
5
6
Transcending coarser
and finer resolutions
across temporal
scales
Interpretation and
relevance of tool
outputs across a
wide spectrum
of stakeholders
-
-
-
7
Assessing the
effectiveness of
FRM measures
-
2 participants said that
transcending resolution across
temporal scales is fine.
1 participant said that it was a
lack of information for evaluation.
6 participants did not evaluate
this criteria.
7 participants said that this tool
provides useful outputs for
stakeholders.
2 participants did not evaluate
this criterion.
7 participants said that the
effectiveness of FRM measures
is good.
2 participants did not evaluate
this criterion.
Participants Suggestions to Improve the Tool
-
-
-
Adding necessary information such as database or
journal links or info box for the user to understand
about this criterion, including the meaning and
purpose of this criterion.
Analysing all flood events from 2000 to 2009 in
terms of hazard to select some typical flood events
to include in the tool instead of using all flood
events in the database and also, providing
descriptions of these typical flood events.
Adjusting scientific terminology used as below:
+
+
+
-
Upstream boundary condition should be
replaced by “river discharge”.
Sea level distribution should be replaced by
“Sea level”.
Phase change should be replaced by
“Initial time”.
“Interventions” should be a separate section and its
measures should be visible instead of hidden.
Adding more flood risk reduction measures into
Interventions section (e.g., flood walls, dykes,
reservoirs, water tanks, pump stations, etc.).
Based on the feedback, 4 out of 7 criteria received a positive evaluation from the
participants. The remaining 3 criteria related to reliability of the tool (i.e., transcending
coarser and finer resolution across spatial scales, and time scales) could not be thoroughly
assessed by the participants as these three parameters are at the back-end of the tool—
comprising the model and database that generates these results—and are not evident to
the users. As recommended by the expert participants the reliability of these criteria can be
improved by adding additional information about the methodology, database and similar
tools. Based on the results of this pilot test, it can be concluded that Inform is a user-friendly
interactive tool and easy to use even for non-FRM specialists. It satisfies the general user
requirements for an interactive tool that is suitable for co-designing work sessions. The tool
needs to be further tested with a broader group of stakeholders with different expertise
and different experience levels in a multi-stakeholder face-to-face co-design setting, once
the COVID-19sanitary regulations are relaxed.
Improvements suggested by the pilot users related to improved ease of use and
scientific terminology, etc., will be implemented in the next version of the tool.
5. Discussion
Inform has been developed with all the essential features of a co-design tool (e.g.,
inbuilt input library, flexible options, easy to use, quick results, user-friendly interface) for
a wide range of stakeholders. According to Ngo et al. (2020) [24] in Can Tho though people
view climate change impacts as temporary and also as spatially and temporally distant,
there is a willingness to learn about long-term impacts to resort to adaptation measures.
Tools such as Inform can be used to improve the congruency of climate action communication, where the outputs of Inform can be used to frame the messages to stakeholder that are
concrete and action-oriented. Contextualized stories or narratives of Can Tho residents
and concerned stakeholders across space and time can help the stakeholders from Can Tho
to overcome the psychological disconnect. Narratives that are based on gain, loss and fear
are effective when targeting behaviour change [51]. Outputs from Inform can be used to
generate gain-loss-fear-based narratives on flood risk to promote adaptation behavior in
Can Tho. Tools such as Inform can developed and be used by various stakeholders in a
Water 2021, 13, 3131
13 of 16
flood risk context, as well as by researchers from socio-hydrological and/or hydro social
domains to understand individual and organizational perceptions about flood risk and
FRM interventions.
Expanding the type of FRM interventions: The current version of Inform includes
two types of interventions: intervention 1—Reduction of flow due to upstream dams,
intervention 2—Land subsidence control in Can Tho city. Inform could be expanded to
include local FRM interventions—either at city scale or/and locally (grid level) with soft
structural measures, such as swales, wetlands, buffer areas; and hard structural measures,
such as heightening of dikes, constructing flood walls, pump station, relocation of critical
infrastructure, changing street profiles and flood proofing of houses on the flood hazard,
to enable the generation of flood depth and flood damage information. This will result
in a powerful decision-making tool. The current version of Inform does not support such
calculations as simulating these types of interventions (e.g., building reservoirs, dykes,
flood barriers, flood walls, etc.) is beyond the capacity of the 2D model. Flood modelers
and online tool developers can jointly explore the possibility of incorporating a suite of
FRM interventions such as Climateapp [52] in the flood risk tool. Combining past events
and plausible future events can help in testing the effectiveness of FRM measures such as
dikes, diversions, green infrastructure or nature-based solutions, land use planning and
zoning regulations.
Generating plausible future scenario particulars: Inform can be modified to generate
plausible future scenarios. The output will then enable city planners and administrators to
explore risk-informed FRM approaches based on a cost-benefit ratio assessment, instead
of the standards-based approach, to decide on effective FRM interventions for the future.
Additionally, total flood damages and grid-based flood damages can be calculated for
different scenarios combinations of RCPs [53] and Mekong Delta Plan scenarios [30]. This
will create a wide range of analysis possibilities at the strategic, planning and project
implementation level. A thorough exploration of flood damages and flood risk based on
these scenarios and using this information to create engagement with stakeholders can
lead to enhanced trust and awareness. Additionally, there is scope for developing Inform to
be akin to the climate analogs tool [54]. Upon selecting a particular city in Australia and
an RCP or a shared-socio economic pathway (SSPs), the climate analogs tool lists out how
the climate of that city would be in the future along the RCP and lists similar cities which
have a similar climate now. For example, according to the climate analogs tool, under the
RCP 8.5 emission scenario in the year 2090, the temperature and number of hottest as well
driest days in Sydney will be similar to the hot and dry days of present-day Brisbane. This
comparative narrative can help the user better understand how that future climate might
feel like as it directly compares with a present-day reality. Inform can be improved to roll
out similar flood depth and flood damage analogs comparing cities within the Mekong
Delta that would help strategic decision makers or roll out local analogs within the city
that help city administrators, communities and individuals understand flood risk.
Expanding objectives of flood risk assessment: There is evidence of floods affecting
the health of people in Can Tho, which could also be explored from a public health point of
view [55]. Inform can be improved to assess the contribution of, flood risk, on public health
and quantifying the associated health risk in the urban center of Can Tho. This will result
in a more robust and comprehensive tool to support flood risk assessment for the Ninh
Kieu district in the future.
Increasing the applicability and interactivity: Inform can be made compatible to be
used through computer and smartphones alike by the literate general public, it can serve
as a good FRM outreach tool. Inform can become an integral part of flood risk awareness
campaigns in Can Tho, which would lead to outcomes such as more informed autonomous
adaptation approaches, align bottom-up and top-down approaches and to build trust
among the stakeholders. There is conclusive evidence in cities of Can Tho, Da Nang and
Quy Nhon in Vietnam that people resort to coping measures to avoid damages during
seasonal flooding events; their intention to implement adaptation measures to minimize or
Water 2021, 13, 3131
14 of 16
eliminate long term flood risk is moderate; and there is a willingness to learn and adapt to
long term climate impacts [24]. Tools such as Inform can enable such learning and promote
the implementation of adaptation measures.
Inform is a location-specific tool for Can Tho, Vietnam. It is a pilot that is being
tested for Can Tho, Vietnam, to enable consultations with a wider range of stakeholders
involved in the flood risk management of Can Tho. The background engine of Inform—1D
model for the entire Mekong Delta can be used to provide water levels for any location
along the Mekong River, whereas the grid-level inundation depths and estimated damages
were obtained directly from the 1D/2D coupled model for only Can Tho. The objective
of developing this tool is to demonstrate that it is possible to simplify the output of
complex hydraulic models to a wider audience using an interactive tool within a short
span of time to enable the understanding of the context; understand possible outcomes of
interventions planned and their impacts; and, more importantly, encourage discussions
between stakeholders so that there is collective decision making and ownership on the
decisions being made with respect to FRM. Although Inform is a location-specific tool
the underlying principles and methodology can be used to customize the tool for other
locations (cities in a river catchment).
6. Conclusions
Inform (Instant flood risk modeling), a web-based hydraulic tool has been developed
based on a simplified 1D model for the entire Mekong Delta, flood hazard and damage
maps, and estimated flood damages for the Ninh Kieu district in Can Tho, Vietnam to
support co-designing of FRM strategies. Seven requirements for user-friendly flood risk tool
obtained through literature review was used to develop this tool. Inform is an interactive
tool that can support probabilistic flood risk assessment and facilitate a co-designing
approach for risk reduction measures with the participation of multi-stakeholders. Pilot
testing and evaluation of Inform by expert users confirmed that Inform contains features
essential for a co-designing tool (e.g., inbuilt input library, flexible options, easy to use,
providing quick results, user-friendly interface). Further pilot testing is recommended
with a wider group of stakeholders in Can Tho to substantiate the findings and strengthen
the tool.
Inform will enable stakeholders to understand the flood risk they will be exposed
to. Risk perceptions allow the prediction of individual and community responses, enable
policymakers to develop effective strategies, implement risk management interventions
that are in line with public expectations, and encourage dialogue and collective learning
among stakeholders. Inform can be used for agenda-setting, formulation of plans and
implementation of urban FRM objectives in the Mekong Delta.
The interactive web-based tool—Inform—presented here is a tool that supports codesign, adoption and successful implementation of interventions that leads to sustainable
infrastructure delivery. In this regard, Inform in its present form or with minor improvements, can assist policy-makers and city administrators achieve sustainable development
goals (SDGs), such as SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 13 (climate action)
and SDG 17 (partnership for the goals). Inclusion of flood water quality in the flood risk
tool can also extend its contribution towards achieving SDG 3, i.e., good health and wellbeing. With the help of an interactive web tool such as Inform presented here, it is possible to
co-design FRM strategies for Can Tho or any other city that is subject to flood risk.
Author Contributions: H.N. and M.R. prepared the initial version of the manuscript. R.R., A.P. and
C.Z. reviewed the manuscript and provided editorial input. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: H.N. is supported by IHE Delft projects OPTIRISK, DURA FR Research fund,
and AXA CC and CR. R.R. is supported by the AXA Research fund and the Deltares Strategic
Research Programme ‘Coastal and Offshore Engineering’. The authors would like to thank CHI
Water 2021, 13, 3131
15 of 16
(Computational Hydraulics International) for providing the PCSWMM licence and SURFsara for
giving the grant to use the e-infra/SURFsara HPC Cloud.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Alfieri, L.; Bisselink, B.; Dottori, F.; Naumann, G.; De Roo, A.; Salamon, P.; Wyser, K.; Feyen, L. Global projections of river flood
risk in a warmer world. Earth’s Future 2017, 5, 171–182. [CrossRef]
Arnell, N.W.; Gosling, S. The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale. Clim. Chang. 2014, 134, 387–401.
[CrossRef]
Forzieri, G.; Cescatti, A.; e Silva, F.B.; Feyen, L. Increasing risk over time of weather-related hazards to the European population:
A data-driven prognostic study. Lancet Planet. Health 2017, 1, e200–e208. [CrossRef]
Hirabayashi, Y.; Mahendran, R.; Koirala, S.; Konoshima, L.; Yamazaki, D.; Watanabe, S.; Kim, H.; Kanae, S. Global flood risk
under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 816–821. [CrossRef]
Kundzewicz, Z.; Kanae, S.; Seneviratne, S.; Handmer, J.; Nicholls, N.; Peduzzi, P.; Mechler, R.; Bouwer, L.M.; Arnell, N.; Mach, K.;
et al. Flood risk and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2013, 59, 1–28. [CrossRef]
Mora, C.; Spirandelli, D.; Franklin, E.C.; Lynham, J.; Kantar, M.B.; Miles, W.; Smith, C.Z.; Freel, K.; Moy, J.; Louis, L.; et al.
Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8,
1062–1071. [CrossRef]
UNISDR. 2013 Floods a “Turning Point”. Available online: https://undrr.org/news/2013-floods-turning-point (accessed on
3 August 2020).
OECD. Financial Management of Flood Risk; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2016. [CrossRef]
van den Belt, M. Mediated Modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building; Island Press: Washington,
DC, USA, 2004.
Beall, A.; Zeoli, L. Participatory modeling of endangered wildlife systems: Simulating the sage-grouse and land use in Central
Washington. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68, 24–33. [CrossRef]
Suarez, P.; Ribot, J.C.; Patt, A.G. Climate information, equity and vulnerability reduction. In Distribution Impacts of Climate Change
and Disasters: Concepts and Cases; Ruth, M., Ibarrarian, M.E., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Northampton, UK, 2009; pp. 151–165. [CrossRef]
Rijke, J.; van Herk, S.; Zevenbergen, C.; Ashley, R.; Hertogh, M.; Heuvelhof, E.T. Adaptive programme management through a
balanced performance/strategy oriented focus. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 1197–1209. [CrossRef]
WL|Delft Hydraulics. Hydraulishe Effecten van Maatregelen Bovenrivierengebied: PKB-Studie Deelrapport B; WL|Delft Hydraulics:
Delft, The Netherlands, 2003; p. 61.
Zhou, Q.; de Bruijn, J.A.; ten Heuvelhof, E.F.; Mayer, I.S. Room to Play: How the Planning Kit Blokkendoos (PKB) Prevent-ed
a Deadlock in Water Management. In Learn to Game—Game to Learn; Kin, G.Y., Cai, Y., Eds.; National University of Singapore:
Singapore, 2009; pp. 41–50. ISBN 978-981-08-3769-3.
Leskens, J.G.; Brugnach, M.; Hoekstra, A. Application of an Interactive Water Simulation Model in urban water management:
A case study in Amsterdam. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 70, 1729–1739. [CrossRef]
Faulkner, H.; Parker, D.; Green, C.; Beven, K. Developing a Translational Discourse to Communicate Uncertainty in Flood Risk
between Science and the Practitioner. Ambio 2007, 36, 692–704. [CrossRef]
Timmerman, J.G.; Beinat, E.; Termeer, C.J.A.M.; Cofino, W.P. A methodology to bridge the water information gap. Water Sci.
Technol. 2010, 62, 2419–2426. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Samuels, P.P. Stakeholder Involvement in Flood Risk Management—Contribution from the FLOODsite Project. In Proceedings of
the WGF Thematic Workshop on Stakeholder Involvement in Flood Risk Management, Bucharest, Romania, 17–19 April 2012.
Leskens, J.G.; Kehl, C.; Tutenel, T.; Kol, T.; De Haan, G.; Stelling, G.; Eisemann, E. An interactive simulation and visualization tool
for flood analysis usable for practitioners. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2015, 22, 307–324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Scheffran, J. Tools for Stakeholder Assessment and Interaction. In Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management: Theory
and Practice; Stoll-Kleemann, S., Welp, M., Eds.; Spinger: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 153–185. [CrossRef]
Aubert, A.H.; Bauer, R.; Lienert, J. A review of water-related serious games to specify use in environmental Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 105, 64–78. [CrossRef]
Mintzberg, H.; Raisinghani, D.; Theoret, A. The Structure of “Un-structured” Decision Processes. Adm. Sci. Q. 1976, 21, 246–275.
[CrossRef]
Maloney, E.K.; Lapinski, M.K.; Witte, K. Fear Appeals and Persuasion: A Review and Update of the Extended Parallel Process
Model. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2011, 5, 206–219. [CrossRef]
Ngo, C.C.; Poortvliet, P.M.; Feindt, P.H. Drivers of flood and climate change risk perceptions and intention to adapt:
An explorative survey in coastal and delta Vietnam. J. Risk Res. 2019, 23, 424–446. [CrossRef]
Brügger, A.; Morton, T.A.; Dessai, S. “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. J. Environ.
Psychol. 2016, 46, 125–142. [CrossRef]
Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The Psychological Distance of Climate Change. Risk Anal. 2011, 32, 957–972. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 3131
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
16 of 16
Leelawat, N.; Pee, L.G.; Iijima, J. Mobile Apps in Flood Disasters: What Information do Users Prefer? In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Mobile Business, Berlin, Germany, 10–13 June 2013; p. 15.
Leiserowitz, A. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Clim. Chang.
2006, 77, 45–72. [CrossRef]
Nisbet, M.C. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames
Matter for Public Engagement. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2010, 51, 12–23. [CrossRef]
MDP. Mekong Delta Plan: Long-Term Vision and Strategy for a Safe, Prosperous and Sustainable Delta; Open Development Mekong:
Vietnam, 2013; p. 126. Available online: https://data.opendevelopmentmekong.net/library_record/mekong-delta-plan-longterm-vision-and-strategy-for-a-safe-prosperous-and-sustainable-delta (accessed on 5 November 2021).
Rijkswaterstaat. Over Overstroomik? Available online: https://www.overstroomik.nl/ (accessed on 6 August 2020).
UK Environment Agency. Check You Long Term Flood Risk. Available online: https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.
uk/long-term-flood-risk/ (accessed on 6 August 2020).
Melbourne Water. Property Flood Level Information. 2019. Available online: https://www.melbournewater.com.au/planningand-building/apply-to-build-or-develop/property-flood-level-information (accessed on 6 August 2020).
Ngo, H.; Pathirana, A.; Ranasinghe, R.; Radhakrishnan, M. Inform, an Instant Flood Risk Modelling Tool for Can Tho City in
Mekong Delta, Vietnam. 2020. Available online: https://fg.srv.pathirana.net (accessed on 5 October 2021).
Ngo, H.; Pathirana, A. Repository of Source Code and Flood Damage Data for the Instant Flood Risk Modelling Tool (Inform) for
Can Tho. 2020. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/3968532#.Xyp3gygzY2w (accessed on 2 September 2021).
DWF. Survey on Perception of Risk in Can Tho City; DWF: Lauzerte, France, 2011; p. 182.
SCE. Comprehensive Resilience Planning for Integrated Flood Risk Mangement for Can Tho. Available online: https://sce.fr/
en/comprehensive-resilience-planning-integrated-flood-risk-management-can-tho-vietnam (accessed on 7 August 2020).
Ngo, H.; Pathirana, A.; Zevenbergen, C.; Ranasinghe, R. An Effective Modelling Approach to Support Probabilistic Flood
Forecasting in Coastal Cities—Case Study: Can Tho, Mekong Delta, Vietnam. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 55. [CrossRef]
Ngo, H.; Ranasinghe, R.; Zevenbergen, C.; Kirezci, E.; Maheng, D.; Radhakrishnan, M.; Pathirana, A. An efficient modelling
approach for probabilistic assessments of present-day and future fluvial flooding. Front. Clim. 2021. submitted.
Seijger, C.; Hoang, V.T.M.; Van Halsema, G.; Douven, W.; Wyatt, A. Do strategic delta plans get implemented? The case of the
Mekong Delta Plan. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 1131–1145. [CrossRef]
Radhakrishnan, M.; Pathirana, A.; Ashley, R.; Zevenbergen, C. Structuring Climate Adaptation through Multiple Perspectives:
Framework and Case Study on Flood Risk Management. Water 2017, 9, 129. [CrossRef]
Hoang, L.P.; Lauri, H.; Kummu, M.; Koponen, J.; van Vliet, M.T.H.; Supit, I.; Leemans, R.; Kabat, P.; Ludwig, F. Mekong River
flow and hydrological extremes under climate change. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 20, 3027–3041. [CrossRef]
Radhakrishnan, M.; Nguyen, H.Q.; Gersonius, B.; Pathirana, A.; Vinh, K.Q.; Ashley, R.M.; Zevenbergen, C. Coping capacities for
improving adaptation pathways for flood protection in Can Tho, Vietnam. Clim. Chang. 2017, 149, 29–41. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, H.Q.; Radhakrishnan, M.; Bui, T.K.N.; Tran, D.D.; Ho, L.P.; Tong, V.T.; Huynh, L.T.P.; Chau, N.X.Q.; Ngo, T.T.T.;
Pathirana, A.; et al. Evaluation of retrofitting responses to urban flood risk in Ho Chi Minh City using the Motivation and Ability
(MOTA) framework. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 47, 101465. [CrossRef]
Bertram, N.; Murphy, C.; Pasman, R.; Rogers, B.; Gunn, A.; Urich, C.; Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K.; Lowe, R.; Radhakrishnan, M.;
Gersonius, B. Swamped, Swamped—The Gallery, Victoria, Australia, 22 February 2017 to 22 March 2017; The City of Port Phillip: Port
Phillip City, VIC, Australia, 2017.
Chinh, D.T.; Gain, A.K.; Dung, N.V.; Haase, D.; Kreibich, H. Multi-Variate Analyses of Flood Loss in Can Tho City, Mekong Delta.
Water 2016, 8, 6. [CrossRef]
Chinh, D.T.; Bubeck, P.; Dung, N.V.; Kreibich, H. The 2011 flood event in the Mekong Delta: Preparedness, response, damage and
recovery of private households and small businesses. Disasters 2016, 40, 753–778. [CrossRef]
Radhakrishnan, M.; Islam, T.; Ashley, R.M.; Pathirana, A.; Quan, N.H.; Gersonius, B.; Zevenbergen, C. Context specific adaptation
grammars for climate adaptation in urban areas. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 102, 73–83. [CrossRef]
Garschagen, M. Risky Change? Vietnam’s Urban Flood Risk Governance between Climate Dynamics and Transformation. Pac.
Aff. 2015, 88, 599–621. [CrossRef]
EEA. Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in EUROPE 2016: Transforming Cities in a Changing Climate; European Environment
Agency, Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016; ISBN 9789292137427.
Wilson, D.K.; Purdon, S.E.; Wallston, K.A. Compliance to health recommendations: A theoretical overview of message framing.
Health Educ. Res. 1988, 3, 161–171. [CrossRef]
Adaptation Solutions. Available online: https://www.climateapp.nl/ (accessed on 6 August 2020).
IPCC. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Summary
for Policymakers; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. Available online: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/
WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf (accessed on 7 August 2020).
CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology. Climate Change in Australia Website. Available online: https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.
gov.au/en/climate-projections/climate-analogues/analogues-explorer/ (accessed on 10 August 2020).
Nguyen, H.Q.; Huynh, T.T.N.; Pathirana, A.; Van Der Steen, P. Microbial Risk Assessment of Tidal−Induced Urban Flooding in
Can Tho City (Mekong Delta, Vietnam). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]