@article{DiBaldassarreKreibichVorogushynetal.2018,
  author    = {Di Baldassarre, Giuliano and Kreibich, Heidi and Vorogushyn, Sergiy and Aerts, Jeroen and Arnbjerg-Nielsen, Karsten and Barendrecht, Marlies and Bates, Paul and Borga, Marco and Botzen, Wouter and Bubeck, Philip and De Marchi, Bruna and Llasat, Carmen Maria and Mazzoleni, Maurizio and Molinari, Daniela and Mondino, Elena and Mard, Johanna and Petrucci, Olga and Scolobig, Anna and Viglione, Alberto and Ward, Philip J.},
  title     = {Hess Opinions: An interdisciplinary research agenda to explore the unintended consequences of structural flood protection},
  series = {Hydrology and earth system sciences : HESS},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {Hydrology and earth system sciences : HESS},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Copernicus},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {1027-5606},
  doi       = {10.5194/hess-22-5629-2018},
  pages     = {5629 -- 5637},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as "levee effect", "safe development paradox" or "safety dilemma". In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of structural flood protection, and then we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk.},
  language  = {en}
}