Quantifying the potential benefits of risk-mitigation strategies on future flood losses in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal

Abstract

Abstract. Flood risk is expected to increase in many regions worldwide due to rapid urbanization and climate change if adequate risk-mitigation (or climate-change-adaptation) measures are not implemented. However, the exact benefits of these measures remain unknown or inadequately quantified for potential future events in some flood-prone areas such as Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, which this paper addresses. This study examines the present (2021) and future (2031) flood risk in Kathmandu Valley, considering two flood occurrence cases (with 100-year and 1000-year mean return periods) and using four residential exposure inventories representing the current urban system (Scenario A) or near-future development trajectories (Scenarios B, C, D) that Kathmandu Valley could experience. The findings reveal substantial mean absolute financial losses (EUR 473 million and 775 million in repair and reconstruction costs) and mean loss ratios (2.8 % and 4.5 %) for the respective flood occurrence cases in current times if the building stock's quality is assumed to have remained the same as in 2011 (Scenario A). Under a “no change” pathway for 2031 (Scenario B), where the vulnerability of the expanding building stock remains the same as in 2011, mean absolute financial losses would increase by 14 %–16 % over those of Scenario A. However, a minimum (0.20 m) elevation of existing residential buildings located in the floodplains and the implementation of flood-hazard-informed land-use planning for 2031 (Scenario C) could decrease the mean absolute financial losses of the flooding occurrences by 9 %–13 % and the corresponding mean loss ratios by 23 %–27 %, relative to those of Scenario A. Moreover, an additional improvement of the building stock's vulnerability that accounts for the multi-hazard-prone nature of the valley (by means of structural retrofitting and building code enforcement) for 2031 (Scenario D) could further decrease the mean loss ratios by 24 %–28 % relative to those of Scenario A. The largest mean loss ratios computed in the four scenarios are consistently associated with populations of the highest incomes, which are largely located in the floodplains. In contrast, the most significant benefits of risk mitigation (i.e., largest reduction in mean absolute financial losses or mean loss ratios between scenarios) are experienced by populations of the lowest incomes. This paper's main findings can inform decision makers about the benefits of investing in forward-looking multi-hazard risk-mitigation efforts.