The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 11 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina
Open accessAbstract
In 1993, the United States experienced a flood that produced the highest economic damages of the century Large areas of the Midwest were underwater for weeks as the Missouri and Upper Mississippi Rivers left their banks. Over 130 people lost their lives and flood losses grew to over $20 billion (US). For a few years after, national attention was focused on floodplain management, but, as other issues faced the government, efforts to develop a new approach to dealing with flood losses faded. Hurricane Katrina, with the deaths of over 1300 persons and billions of dollars in damages, brought flooding back to the front page of the newspapers and has stirred a new interest in developing a more rational approach to occupance of the floodplain and to use of new approaches to flood damage reduction. As a result of several recent studies and government actions, attention is now being focused on the use of risk analysis methodologies to support decisions on floodplain use, slowly edging the United States closer to flood risk management and away from floodplain management. This paper discusses the lessons learned from the 1993 flood, the actions taken in the United States since 1993, and the impact Hurricane Katrina is having on bringing risk into the decisions that shape floodplain use in the United States.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper reviews US floodplain management before and after Hurricane Katrina, arguing that the country is slowly shifting from floodplain management toward flood risk management. It uses the 1993 Mississippi flood and post-Katrina forensic and policy efforts to show how risk analysis is being incorporated into levee safety, New Orleans protection, and Louisiana coastal restoration decisions.
Key findings
- The 1993 Mississippi River flood caused over 130 deaths and more than $20 billion (US) in damages, described as the largest economic loss of the century in constant dollars; the 1994 IFMRC report recommended concurrent reduction of flood damage, environmental protection, and economic growth.
- Hurricane Katrina caused more than 1,300 deaths, over a million people lost their homes and jobs, and estimated direct and induced damages, disaster response, and restoration costs were expected to exceed $100 billion.
- Post-Katrina, the White House directed USACE and FEMA to begin a national levee inventory and assessment based on risk analysis, requesting $30 million in supplemental appropriations; the IPET draft final report concluded the New Orleans hurricane protection system “did not perform as a system” and recommended risk-based planning and design.
- Since 1994, nearly 30,000 structures were relocated or removed from the floodplain, but by mid-2002 the US still had three floodplain management poles—risk analysis, the SPF no-disasters approach, and the NFIP 100-year standard—and flood risk management remained “in its infancy” in the United States.
Methods
- Narrative policy review and commentary synthesizing lessons from the 1993 flood, actions taken since 1993, and the impact of Hurricane Katrina; no formal empirical dataset, sample, or statistical model is described.
- Draws on government reports and actions, including IFMRC (1994), USACE Standard Project Flood and risk analysis documents, FEMA’s NFIP, NRC reports (2000, 2004, 2006), ASCE External Review Panel reports, the IPET draft final report (June 1, 2006), and the LACPR interim report (July 10, 2006).
- Main analysis is qualitative historical and policy synthesis comparing floodplain management and flood risk management and tracing the adoption of risk analysis in US flood policy.
Limitations
- The paper does not state limitations of its own analysis; it reports limitations of the risk-assessment approaches it discusses, including the LACPR report’s note that the risk-based methodology needs further development by leading experts and rigorous independent review, and the NRC panel’s concerns about large uncertainties in probabilities, difficulty estimating failure probabilities due to spatial heterogeneity, and vulnerability of many system components.
- The author states that moving to flood risk management requires understanding the costs and consequences of failure, but willingness to address the latter was “not yet apparent” within the federal government, and federal NED guidance was said to bias against environmental and social costs.
- Evident from the text: the paper is a policy synthesis rather than a formal empirical study, relying on secondary reports and the author’s interpretation, so its findings are interpretive and not causal estimates.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 Sources not found · 10 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given
In the paper
“The 1994 study of the Mississippi floods indicated that this federal guidance created a bias against consideration of environmental and social costs and benefits so that when the justification for a project is presented to the Congress it is based almost entirely on the economic costs and benefits with little consideration of the impact on people and the natural environment.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites IFMRC, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The concept of flood risk management is still in its infancy in the United States.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In late fall 2005, the White House directed USACE to initiate, in coordination with FEMA, a national levee inventory and assessment and to found the assessment on risk analysis principles (Tolleson, 2005).”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 6.1 Levee inventory
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tolleson, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Studies by the National Academies have also commented on the government's failure to consider the social and environmental consequences of flooding (NRC, 2004).”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NRC, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The SPF normally would provide protection against floods with recurrence intervals near or slightly above the 500 year interval.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 3 Flood damage reduction approaches
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USACE, 1965
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 11
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It quickly became evident that there was no single inventory of levees and flood damage reduction structures in the United States and that, for the most part, the condition of these structures, especially the levees, was not known.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 6.1 Levee inventory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A 2005 examination of floodplain literature and citations on Google indicated that the concept of flood risk management had clearly taken hold within the European Union but that few in the United States had even begun to explore its use (Galloway, 2005a).”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 3 Flood damage reduction approaches
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Galloway, 2005a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The threat of terrorist activity has certainly added to the complexity of planning for disasters and in the establishment of policies and procedures to deal with such events.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The United States' government has been actively involved in floodplain management and flood damage reduction for over 70 years.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By the middle of 2002, the nation was dealing with three floodplain management poles: the risk analysis approach; a social-goal based, no-disasters approach based on use of the SPF; and the fixed, 100 year standard of the NFIP (Figure 1).”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 3 Flood damage reduction approaches
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The system's performance was compromised by the incompleteness of the system, the inconsistency in levels of protection, and the lack of redundancy.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 6.2 The Forensics of New Orleans -IPET
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USACE, 2006a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 1994, this interagency committee reported to the White House that the 1993 flood was the result of a significant hydrometeorological event (extreme rainfall) and that such events are natural and will continue to occur.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 2 The Great Mississippi River Flood of 1993
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites IFMRC, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Until 2006, the focus within the United States was on floodplain management.Neither the term 'flood risk management' nor the practice of flood risk management was in wide use, although USACE and other groups had begun to employ risk analysis methodologies in some of their work.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 3 Flood damage reduction approaches
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hurricane Katrina brought the government back to reality and it is now possible that, in the decade ahead, the United States will see a rapid and wellsupported effort to embrace flood risk management into programs that are coordinated with the broader homeland security management activities.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The ERP issued a report in March 2006 indicating that the evaluation work being performed by the IPET was generally in conformance with engineering standards (ASCE 2006a).”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 6.2 The Forensics of New Orleans -IPET
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ASCE, 2006a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The IPET concluded that the hurricane protection system for New Orleans and vicinity: “... did not perform as a system: the hurricane protection in New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana was a system in name only.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 6.2 The Forensics of New Orleans -IPET
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USACE, 2006a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The committee also reported that people and property remained at risk throughout the United States and that, with pressures for development in the floodplain, increased damages should be expected in the future unless action was taken to provide more effective management of the floodplain (IFMRC, 1994).”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 2 The Great Mississippi River Flood of 1993
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites IFMRC, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Efforts to deal with the former are underway, but a willingness to address the latter is unfortunately not yet apparent within the federal government.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The failure of several levees in New Orleans raised questions as to why the levees had failed and brought immediate attention to the condition of flood damage reduction structures throughout the country.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 6 The emergence of risk management
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moving to flood risk management will require not only efforts to understand the engineering uncertainties connected with flooding but it will also require a clear understanding of the costs and consequences of a failure to deal with floods.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The seemingly logical combination of efforts to deal with terrorist-induced and natural disasters in the same manner threatened the forward movement of risk management for floodplains.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“On July 10, 2006, USACE released its interim report on future protection for New Orleans and coastal Louisiana.The report, which was approved by the White House, outlined the analytical framework for decision making which is being developed and the technical information that is being gathered to shape those decisions.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 6.3 Louisiana coastal protection and restoration
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites USACE, 2006b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Movement toward risk management will require harmonization of the tri-polar approaches in use in floodplain management.”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 7 Conclusions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 1993 Mississippi River flood caused over 130 deaths and over $20 billion (US) in damages, the largest economic loss in constant dollars of the century.
“Over 130 people lost their lives and flood damages grew to over $20 billion (US), the largest economic loss (in constant dollars) of the century.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005 devastated New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and Mississippi.
“On August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina, one of the strongest storms to strike the coast of the United States in the past 100 years, devastated the city of New Orleans and much of the Gulf of Mexico coastline in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hurricane Katrina caused over a million people to lose their homes and jobs and more than 1300 deaths.
“Over a million people lost their homes and jobs, and more then 1300 people lost their lives.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The cost of direct and induced damages, disaster response, and restoration of communities and some level of flood protection from Hurricane Katrina will exceed $100 billion.
“It is now estimated that the cost of direct and induced damages, disaster response, and restoration of the communities and some level of flood protection will exceed $100 billion.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 1 Introduction
“Disastrous multi-state floods in 1993, 1997 and 2006 (Hurricane Katrina)”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 5 Hurricane Katrina
“On August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > 1 Introduction
“FLOODsite (2004)”
§ Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina > References
“FLOODsite (2005). Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies.”
Citations
Cites
Dubnick, M. J. (1998) · University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) · Cited by 3,808
Parker, D. D., & Parker, D. D. (1994) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.271413 · Cited by 239
2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure
ASCE (2005) · American Society of Civil Engineers eBooks · doi:10.1061/9780784478851 · Cited by 86
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Masters, M. W. (2008) · Cited by 70
Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies
Januar, D. (2007) · Cited by 30
chearings (2007) · University of Michigan Library Repository · Cited by 3
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- 2006, Second Interim Report on the Status of Its Investigation of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System
- 2006, Hurricane Katrina: One Year Later: What Must We Do Next? August 25, 2006. Report of the External review Panel
- 2006, Third National Water Resources Dialogue
- Galloway, G.E. Facing the 21st Century Flood Challenge: Flood Risk Management in the United States. Presentation at the Third International Symposium on Flood Defence. May25, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. pp.2005
- Galloway G.E., 2005, Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
- Galloway G.E., 2006, The Bridge, 36, 43
- Galloway, G.E. and Sullivan, T. Hurricane Katrina: Communicating the Risk and the Challenge. Proceedings, PCST‐9 Pre‐Conference, Natural Disasters and Science Communication. May2006, Jeju, Korea.
- 1994, Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21st Century: Report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee to the Administration Floodplain Management Task Force
- 2000, Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction Studies
- 2004, Analytical Methods and Approaches for water Resources Project Planning
- 2006, Drawing Louisiana's New Map: Addressing Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana
- 2006, Second Report of the National Academy of Engineering/National Research Council Committee on New Orleans Regional Hurricane Protection Projects
- Rabbon P.D., 2005, Reducing Hurricane and Flood Risk in the Nation, Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
- 1965, Engineer Manual, 1110–2‐1411. Standard Project Flood Determinations
- 2004, Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration Study
- 2006, Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System. Draft Final Report of the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force. Volume I ‐ Executive Summary and Overview
- 2006, Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
- 2002, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis
- 2006, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned
- 1973, Federal Register, 38, 24784
- Wolshon B., 2006, The Bridge, 36, 27
- 2006, A New Framework for Planning the Future of Coastal Louisiana after the Hurricanes of 2005
- Vining, R.F. The U.S. Army Corps’ Budget: A Navigation Program in Crisis? Presentation to the National Waterways Conference 2004 Budget Summit. March92004. Available at: http://www.waterways.org/meetings/Vining04.pdf
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ran, J., & Nedović‐Budić, Z. (2016) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.01.008 · Cited by 209
Flood risk management: A strategic approach
Sayers, P. B., Li, Y., Galloway, G. E., Penning‐Rowsell, E. C., Shen, F., Kang, W., Chen, Y., & Quesne, T. L. (2013) · Cited by 184
Self-citationLarge and inequitable flood risks in Los Angeles, California
Sanders, B. F., Schubert, J. E., Kahl, D. T., Mach, K. J., Brady, D., AghaKouchak, A., Forman, F., Matthew, R. A., Ulibarrí, N., & Davis, S. J. (2022) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-022-00977-7 · Cited by 159
Klijn, F., Samuels, P., & van Os, A. G. (2008) · International Journal of River Basin Management · doi:10.1080/15715124.2008.9635358 · Cited by 152
Tyler, J., Sadiq, A., & Noonan, D. S. (2019) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-019-03606-3 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Galloway, G. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Corresponding author
- Galloway, Gerald E.
- ORCID
- Galloway, Gerald E.
- Venue
- International Journal of River Basin Management
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 301-306
- ISSN
- 1571-5124 (ISSN-L)
- 1814-2060
- OpenAlex
- W2071609410
- Semantic Scholar
- 5332f744bd687d4c3b3c309548ee3c6ac742031a
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of River Basin Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water resources management and optimization
- Keywords
- flood risk management, floodplain management, Hurricane Katrina, 1993 flood, flood damage reduction, risk analysis, flood risk assessment, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15715124.2008.9635357
- The paper
- Galloway, G. E. (2008). Flood risk management in the United States and the impact of Hurricane Katrina. International Journal of River Basin Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2008.9635357
