|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
You have accessed an archived page on the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada website. This material may be outdated. Please consult our new site for up-to-date information. |
||||||||||||
|
|
Research Reports A Preliminary Assessment of the Effectiveness of Flood Damage Reduction Measures in Canada
Summary Floods are natural phenomena which have had significant social and economic impacts on populations located near waterways in both Canada and the USA. In order to reduce the damages caused by future floods, it is useful to assess key flood damage reduction strategies, how they have evolved, both politically and socially, and to provide some analysis on their effectiveness. In order to coordinate the Canadian and USA Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) research efforts, a working group committee on the flood damage reduction program was created by the Environmental Adaptation Research Group of Environment Canada (University of Toronto). Funding and direction for the Canadian portion of the comparative assessment was provided by Emergency Preparedness Canada and the Environmental Adaptation Research Group of Environment Canada. During the first year of the study (FY 1997-1998), the preliminary assessment for Canada was conducted in three parts. The use of case studies in guiding research directives and providing a rapid assessment of the flood damage reduction program in Canada was identified as a valuable approach to do the evaluation. Four graduate students, under the supervision of their professors, (Dr. Slobodan Simonovic, University of Manitoba, Dr. Rob de Loë, University of Guelph and Dr. Dan Shrubsole, University of Western Ontario, and Dr. Jean Rousselle, École polytechnique, Université de Montréal), gathered data for the Red River Basin in Manitoba, the Credit River in Ontario, and the Chaudière River in Quebec, respectively. The data gathered included: human occupancy of floodplains, the net economic value of floodplains, and the natural functions of watersheds for the periods 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Each case study team also conducted a literature survey and created a list of contacts in order to survey the policy and state of practice of FDR in Canada. The Manitoba case study initially reviewed the nature, causes and pertinent issues in flooding along the Red River. A brief history of flood events was also included. The report then provided information relevant to a discussion of flood mitigation strategies by briefly discussing topics such as damage assessment, agricultural activity, federal flood mitigation policy, and provincial responsibilities for flood management in Manitoba. The Ontario case study was considerably narrower in focus. Instead of evaluating all of the watershed functions, the researchers focused on the natural functions research questions. A content analysis of policies relevant to the Credit River watershed was conducted. This was followed by a more detailed field-level analysis in three communities within the Credit River watershed. As a first step, the Quebec case study reviewed the Canada-Quebec agreement on flood damage reduction, and the Quebec policies resulting from those agreements. In order to assess the effectiveness of the various policies, a case study of the Chaudière River Basin was also undertaken. A fourth case study in Canada was initiated during the second year of the comparative assessment (FY 1998-1999). This study was conducted by a graduate student under the supervision of Dr. Jean Rousselle, École polytechnique, Université de Montréal and focused on the effectiveness of flood damage reduction measures in the Greater Montreal region. Acknowledgments This publication has been prepared for: Office of Critical 2nd Floor, Jackson Bldg. This material is based upon work supported by the Directorate of Research and Development (DRD) in the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP), formerly Emergency Preparedness Canada, under Contract Reference No. 1997D001. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. ©1998 Minister of Public Works and Government Services |
|
| Last Updated: 10/25/2005 |  | Important Notices |
