Risk assessment and control approach for storm water flood across flood-prone

areas in Addis Ababa

Introduction

Cities are undergoing deep transformations throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Their

populations are growing rapidly and their physical boundaries are expanding.
Socioeconomic shifts – including the rise of an urban middle class – are leading to new
patterns of production and consumption. Along with these shifts is a changing climate.
Addis Ababa is no exception. According to the 2007 census, the city had a population of
about 2.74 million (CSA 2007) (excluding informal settlements in the 10 sub-cities
within the administrative boundaries) and it was anticipated to grow to more than 3.1
million currently.
Unofficial estimates suggest that more than 1 million people move in and out of Addis
Ababa daily. The current area of Addis Ababa is approximately 518 km2 (as per
geographic information system (GIS) delineation). Land use has changed from being
largely un-built areas (about 85% in 1984) to largely built-up areas (more than 57% of
the area in 2002), with impervious areas increasing rapidly.
As Ethiopia continues on its development trajectory to reach middle income status in
2025, its key economic assets will be affected by climate change (FDRE 2011).
There is a clear need for new resource management practices that can secure a
sustainable, climate-compatible future for cities and their surroundings. On these regards
it is most important to study for the risk assessment and its control approach across flood-
prone areas in Addis Ababa.
Therefore, the risk assessment and control approach will provides direction for city
managers on how to mitigate future risks related to urban flooding in Addis Ababa city
especially in flood-prone areas in such a manner that can respond to the impacts of
climate change.

1
Statement of the problem

It is now generally acknowledged that urban flooding are frequently the result of multiple
sources associated with a combination of overland flow from impermeable surfaces,
sewer surcharging and receiving watercourse overloading (Balmforth et al., 2006).
The intra-urban response to flood flows operates through various process mechanisms
and acts on differing spatial scales, combining above and below ground systems, storage
facilities and flow routes. Four individual systems collectively comprise the urban
drainage network; a foul (combined) sewerage system, a separate surface water sewer
system, a receiving water channel (normally “heavily modified”) and exceed byance
surface flows during extreme wet weather conditions. Interconnections, including system
cross-connections, infiltration and inflow pathways as well as system abstractions further
complicate the process interactions. Potential responses to the flood driver mechanisms
must take into consideration this complexity of sources and scales of operation.

In Addis Ababa 67% of the populations which are living in residential areas made of mud
and wood constructions are particularly vulnerable to flood action. The “mud and wood”
residential type constitutes around 51% of the flood-prone residential buildings.

Losses of green structures in the urban core and peri-urban areas in Addis Ababa are
evident; in particular a dramatic reduction in agricultural land is estimated.
A business as usual scenario (i.e. continued low density development including flood
prone areas) modeled to 2025 suggests that the spatial extent of the urban zone could
increase by around half again from 2011 and around a third of the city’s agricultural land
and almost a quarter of its other vegetated areas would be lost.
It would be also expected that a further 31% of the riverine corridor of 2011 would be
lost, thus exacerbating problems of flooding, e.g. through the introduction of impervious
cover and as a result of the increased exposure of the population within flood prone areas.
However, both climate change and urban development are expected to change surface
Temperatures.

2
General Objective:

To avoid or minimize increased flooding and pollution risks whilst increasing

performance efficiency and enhancing local environmental quality-of-life.

Specific Objectives
To identify the present challenging factors in managing storm water flood.
To predict the vast range of damage on urban infrastructures and life at all that will be
created due to flooding.
To suggest solutions for problems related with flooding.
Literature Review
In many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, rapid urbanization outpaces the ability of city
managers to adjust basic service provision, including water supply, sanitation and flood
protection (Mafuta et al. 2011).
Urban water management systems become subject to a range of pressures.
Unplanned urban developments within watersheds may pollute surface waters and
complicate water source protection. Land clearance, deforestation and the expansion of
impermeable surfaces increase the risk of flooding, and slow the rate of infiltration and
aquifer recharge. As storm and surface water runoff flow through built-up areas, their
pollution loads increase, particularly where the necessary solid waste management
practices are lacking (Palaniappan et al. 2010).
The absence of water and sanitation services, alongside inadequate drainage and flood
protection mechanisms, increase the disease burden on urban populations and the
vulnerability of urban communities to weather-related disasters. New disease vectors or
new infections emerge among urban populations.
Urban water management goes much beyond providing water and sanitation services and
overseeing related infrastructure. It also includes mitigating the risk of floods, landslides
and other water-mediated disasters, as well as managing solid waste and storm water
drainage. Conventionally, these services have been delivered in isolation. Yet, greater
integration is key to safeguarding cities and water resources (Bahri 2012). Silo-thinking’

3
is not limited to city managers. At the basin-level, water resources management often
fails to account for the interdependencies between freshwater, wastewater, flood control
and storm water (Parkinson et al. 2010). Cities need water for residential, commercial and
other uses. Yet, water may be located far away and is unlikely to be at the disposal of
cities alone. Moreover, prevalent management practices make little distinction between
different water qualities. A wide range of water needs are met using high-quality water,
thereby exacerbating resource scarcity (van der Steen 2006). The situation is further
complicated by the myriad authorities and legislative frameworks that govern urban
water management. Sustainable water management practices in cities benefit not only
urban communities but also those in surrounding areas

Set against a scenario of climate change and uncertain economic and socio-political
futures, it is inevitable that there will be a variety of both risks and opportunities which
will arise in the implementation and management of urban surface water drainage
infrastructure. The priority objectives must be to avoid or minimize increased flooding
and pollution risks whilst increasing performance efficiency and enhancing local
environmental quality-of-life. Clearly the identification of priority action strategies and
the evaluation of mitigating options will be prime components in future adaptive
sustainable urban storm water management. A key element in any future innovative
organizational framework must be the recognition of the differing regimes and impacts of
storm events (Davies and McManus, 2004).

Method of the study

Control and management approaches include spatial considerations from the level of the
individual building (and curtilage), through the plot, site and sub-catchment levels as well
as interactions with the surrounding peri-urban region. The key control interaction is the
ability to discharge excess flows away from the development site (for flood control). In
many cases, it will be most effective to resolve local flooding and pollution problems
through addressing and disentangling sources, changing the volume and pattern of
surface runoff (e.g. through disconnection, infiltration etc.) and/or by increasing available

4
storage capacity. In addition, above-ground flood routes and temporary storage for
extreme events need to be identified rather than seeking to expand traditional below-
ground conveyance systems. Urban surface flooding during such extreme events can be
further exacerbated by source contributions from groundwater and overflows from local
ditches.
The majority of current modeling approaches for surface water flooding are based on 2D
overland routing of an assumed uniformly distributed rainfall event (or “blanket”
approach) which significantly overestimates the extent of flooding, but which is suitable
for initial, high-level screening analysis. Event using a decoupled 1D sewer model and
digital elevation data applied to a GIS base and routing the flood volumes from over 100
manholes and gully chambers approaches are used.

1. References
1. Balmforth, D.J., Digman, C.J., Kellagher, R and Butler, D. 2006. DEFRA Integrated
Urban Drainage Scoping Study. Final Report. DEFRA, London. UK.
2. Birmingham City Council. 2008. IUD Pilot Study, Upper River Rea. Volume 1., Pilot
Report 5011-BM0 1320-BMR-00. Report by Hyder Consulting, Birmingham. UK.
3. Boonya-aroonnet, S., Maksimovic, C., Prodanovic, D and Djordjevic, S. 2007. Urban
pluvial flooding:Development of GIS based pathways model for surface flooding and
interface with surcharged sewer model. In: Sustainable Techniques and Strategies in
Urban Water Management. Proc. NOVATECH07.
4. GRAIE, Lyon, France. ISBN 2-9509337-7-7. Davies, P and McManus.R. 2004.
Integrated stormwater planning. In: Proc. Floodplain Management Conference. 2 – 5
May 2004. Coff’s Harbour, NSW. Australia.
5. Dell, V.K., Arthur, S and Pender, G. 2008. The use of a LiDAR DEM in modelling
sewerage derived urban flood wave routeing. In: Proc. 11th Int.Conf on Urban
Drainage. Edinburgh, Scotland. August 2008.IWA Publishing, London. UK (CD-
ROM).
6. Ellis, J.B and Revitt, D.M. 2008. Defining urban diffuse pollution sources and loads to
meet environmental quality standards in urban catchments. Water, Air & Soil Poll.,
8(5/6), 577 – 585.
7. Ellis, J.B., Scholes, L and Revitt, D.M (Edits). 2008. Database Showing
Threats/Uncertainties to Storm water Control Which Exist in Selected Demonstration
Cities Together with Their Predicted Major Impacts. Deliverable Task 2.1.1b. EU 6th
Framework SWITCH Project, Sustainable Management in the City of the future.
www.switchurbanwater.eu.

5
8. Evans, B. 2008. Automated “bridge” detection in DEMs via LIDAR data sources for
urban flood modelling. In: Proc. 11th Int.Conf on Urban Drainage. Edinburgh,
Scotland. August 2008. IWA Publishing,London. UK (CD-ROM). Evans, E., Ashley,
R.M., Hall. J., Penning-Rowsell, E. Saul, A., Sayers, P., Thorne, C and Watkinson. A.
2004. Foresight Future Flooding. Scientific Summary. Vol.1, Future Risks and Their
Drivers. Office of Science & Technology , London. UK.
9. Gill, E. 2008. IUD Pilot Summary Report. Making Space for Water: Urban Flood Risk
& Integrated Drainage. Project HA2. June 2008. Dept.for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs (Defra). London, UK.
10. Gutierrez-Andres, J., Rayner, C., Udale-Clarke, H, Kellagher, R and Reeves, M. 2008.
2D flooding analysis in Scotland. In: Proc. 11th Int.Conf on Urban Drainage.
Edinburgh, Scotland. August 2008. IWA Publishing, London. UK (CD-ROM).
11. Hankin, B., Waller, S., Astle, G and Kellagher, R. 2008. Mapping space for water:
Screening for urban flash flooding. Flood Risk Management, 1, 13 – 22.
12. Makropolous, C., Butler, D and Maksimovic, G. 2001. GIS-supported stormwater
source control implementation and urban flood risk mitigation. 95 – 105 in Marsalerk,
J (Edit): Advances in Urban Stormwater and Agricultural Runoff Source Controls.
Kluwer, London. ISBN 1402001533.
13. Pitt, R. 2008. Learning Lessons From the 2007 Floods. The Final Pitt Review Report.
The Cabinet Office,London. UK.
14. Scholes, L., Revitt, D.M and Ellis, J.B. 2007. Development and application of a
systematic approach for prioritizing the risk of failure of stormwater control strategies
within selected SWITCH demonstration cities. In: Proc. 2nd SWITCH Scientific
Meeting, Session 5; Improving the Resilience of Urban Water Catchments.25 – 29
November 2007. Tel Aviv, Israel.
15. Scholes, L., Revitt, D.M and Ellis, J.B. 2008. A systematic approach for the
comparative assessment of stormwater pollutant removal potentials. Journ. Envir.
Managt., 88(3). 467 – 478.
16. Viavattene, C., Scholes, L, Revitt, D.M and Ellis, J.B. 2008. A GIS based decision
support system for the implementation of stormwater best management practices. In:
Proc. 11th Int.Conf on Urban Drainage. Edinburgh, Scotland. August 2008. IWA
Publishing, London. UK (CD-ROM).