Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management: A Series of Knowledge Notes Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments ©2019 The World Bank International Bank for Reconstruction and Development The World Bank Group 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 USA October 2019 DISCLAIMER This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The report reflects information available up to June 30, 2019. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. CITATION Please cite this series of knowledge notes and/or its individual elements as follows: World Bank. 2019. “Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management: A Series of Knowledge Notes.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2019. “Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management: A Series of Knowledge Notes—Knowledge Note 1: Assessing and Communicating Urban Flood Risk.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2019. “Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management: A Series of Knowledge Notes—Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2019. “Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management: A Series of Knowledge Notes—Knowledge Note 3: Designing and Implementing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2019. “Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management: A Series of Knowledge Notes—Knowledge Note 4: Operating and Maintaining Urban Flood Risk Management Investments.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2019. “Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management: A Series of Knowledge Notes—Appendix: Case Studies in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management in Japan.” World Bank, Washington, D.C. Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The four-part series “Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management: A Series of Knowledge Notes” was prepared by a World Bank team led by Jolanta Kryspin-Watson, and comprising Shoko Takemoto, Zuzana Stanton-Geddes, Kenya Endo, and Masatsugu Takamatsu. Primary and secondary data gathering, and research, was conducted by Washington CORE and Yachiyo Engineering Co., Ltd. The four reports benefited from additional research and contributions by Jia Wen Hoe, Sayaka Yoda, Toshihiro Sonoda, Alex Keeley, Tomoki Takebayashi, Thimali Thanuja Pathirana Batuwita Pathiranage, and Chinami Yamagami; and peer review by Vivien Deparday, Keiko Saito, Ryoji Takahashi, Bontje Marie Zangerling, Srinivasa Rao Podipireddy, Dixi Mengote-Quah, Dzung Huy Nguyen, and Camilo Lombana Cordoba. The team is also grateful for the support of Mika Iwasaki, Luis Tineo, Reiko Udagawa, and Haruko Nakamatsu. The Knowledge Notes were developed with valuable contributions and guidance from numerous Japanese professionals and experts on integrated urban flood risk management. These include Professor Hiroaki Furumai, the University of Tokyo; Arata Ichihashi, Tokyo Metropolitan Research Institute for Environmental Protection; Michiru Sasagawa, Rain City Support and People for Rainwater; Nobuyuki Tsuchiya, Japan Riverfront Research Center; Shinji Nishimura, Urban Renaissance Agency (UR); Keiji Takeda, UR; Mikio Ishiwatari, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA); Miki Inaoka, JICA; Tomoki Matsumura, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT); Akito Kinoshita, MLIT; Takuji Nakazato; Chikao Okuda, Tokyo Metropolitan Government; Professor Takanori Fukuoka, Tokyo University of Agriculture; Yorikazu Kitae, Development Bank of Japan (DBJ); Tomohiro Ishii, Yokohama City; Minato-Mirai 21 Promotion Division, Urban Development Bureau, Yokohama City; Environmental Planning Bureau, Yokohama City; and Shoji Takemoto, Kobe City. Editorial services were provided by Fayre Makeig and Lisa Ferraro Parmelee. Kenya Endo designed the report. The Knowledge Notes were prepared under the auspices of the Urban Floods Community of Practice (UFCOP). UFCOP is a global knowledge initiative led by the World Bank with support from the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and others. The Knowledge Notes were developed with the financial support of the Japan–World Bank Program for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Management in Developing Countries, which is financed by the Government of Japan and receives technical support from the World Bank Tokyo Disaster Risk Management Hub. Cover Image: The Shibaura wastewater treatment plant in Minato Ward, Tokyo. This sewerage water detention facility integrates significant flood risk management functions with multipurpose urban amenities such as public green spaces, recreational facilities, and new commercial high-rises. (Photo Credit: Kenya Endo) Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Development of Knowledge Notes: The Japanese Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments ii Draft Knowledge Notes Knowledge Note 2: Urban Flood Risk Investment Planning and Prioritization Table of Contents 1. Summary 1 2. Urban Flood Risk Management in Japan: Evolution and Stakeholders 3 2.1 The Evolution of Urban Flood Risk Management in Japan 3 2.2 Institutional Arrangements and Key Stakeholders in Urban Flood Risk Management in Japan 4 2.3 City-Level Flood Management 7 Considering Change and Uncertainty 8 3. Planning and Prioritizing Investments in Urban Flood Risk Management 10 Step 1: Goal Setting 10 Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization 12 Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Sharing 16 4. Case Studies 18 4.1 Case of Tokyo Metropolitan Government 18 Context 18 Evolution of IUFRM Planning in TMG 19 Step 1: Goal Setting 21 Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization 22 Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Sharing 25 Future Challenges 26 4.2 Case of Shiga Prefecture 26 Context 26 Step 1: Goal Setting 27 Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization 28 Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Sharing 30 Future Challenges 31 4.3 Case of Setagaya Ward 31 Context 31 Step 1: Goal Setting 32 Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization 33 Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Sharing 36 Future Challenges and Next Steps 38 5. Lessons Learned and Key Takeaways 39 Step 1: Goal Setting 40 Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization 40 Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Sharing 41 6. References 42 Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments iii List of Figures Figure 1. Share of Total Flood Damage Due to River and Surface Water Floods, 1997–2006 8 Figure 2. Relationship and Effects of Climate Change, Urbanization, and Increasing Flood Damages 9 Figure 3. Timeline of Plans for Managing the Risk of Heavy Rain in Tokyo 19 Figure 4. Heavy Rain Management Goals and Sectoral Allocation in Tokyo 22 Figure 5. Types of Heavy Rain Measures Identified in the Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management (updated (updated 2014) 23 Figure 6. Criteria for Designating Priority Areas for Flood Risk Management in Tokyo 23 Figure 7. Watersheds and Districts Prioritized for Intensified Heavy Rain Measures in Tokyo, 2014 25 Figure 8. Integrating Flood Risk Assessments into Land Use Plans, Shiga Prefecture 30 Figure 9. How Setagaya Ward’s Heavy Rain Basic Policy and Action Plan Connects with Other Legal and Policy and Policy Frameworks 32 Figure 10. Setagaya Ward’s Progress toward Watershed-based Flood Management Targets 33 Figure 11. Setagaya Ward’s Heavy Rain Measures and Responsible Stakeholders 37 List of Tables Table 1. Sharing Responsibility for the Integrated Management of Flood Risk in Japan 6 Table 2. Overview of Flood Damages Caused by Heavy Rain in July 2018 8 Table 3. Future Rainfall Levels, Flood Frequency, and Probability of Flood Occurrence According to Different Climate to Different Climate Change Scenarios 9 Table 4. Urban Flood Risk Management Goals and Decision-Making Tools and Processes in Tokyo and Shiga 11 Table 5. Major Stakeholders and Role Sharing, by Type of Flood Risk 17 Table 6. Evolution of Tokyo’s Flood Management Goals 21 Table 7. Sharing Responsibility for the Installation and Maintenance of Stormwater Storage and Infiltration and Infiltration Facilities 28 List of Boxes Box 1. Overview of Governance Structure and Geographical Features in Japan 5 Figure B1.1: Selected Rivers’ Elevation and Distance: An International Comparison Box 2. Stormwater Management Goals: Rainfall Intensity Used to Plan Sewerage Improvements 12 Box 3. Planning and Prioritizing Measures to Address Urban Floods in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area 13 Figure B3.1: Tokyo Metropolitan Area: Aerial Image Box 4. Community Based Rainwater Harvesting Campaign in Setagaya 34 Figure B4.1: Rainwater Harvesting Tanks Installed in Setagaya Ward Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 1 1. Summary Careful planning and prioritization are critical in the selection of an appropriate mix of integrated urban flood risk management (IUFRM) solutions. An integrated approach to urban flood risk management1 relies on a balance of structural (including nature-based2 ) and nonstructural measures. Building on the results of flood risk assessments (as explained in Knowledge Note 1), decision makers utilize various tools and methodologies to suit the local context and its specific flood hazards. Some of the criteria considered in the planning and prioritization process include: the probable frequency and strength of floods, potential damage to people and property, cost-benefit analyses (CBAs), social and environmental assessments, and the capacity of existing flood risk management measures. By analyzing the decision-making processes that take place at different governance levels in Japan, this Knowledge Note illustrates how the findings and conclusions of risk assessments are translated into urban flood risk management solutions through the process of planning and prioritizing related investment. Knowledge Note 3 will build on this information and focus on the various aspects to be considered during the design and implementation of IUFRM solutions. In Japan, IUFRM involves collaboration and role sharing among various sectoral departments—those related to rivers, sewerage and drainage, urban development, the environment, and disaster risk management (DRM)—and stakeholders. Together with these actors, the public and private sectors, academia, community and civil society organizations, and citizens work together and share responsibilities to achieve the common goal of mitigating and managing urban flood risks in accordance with national laws, policies, plans, and guidelines. Central and local authorities carry out the following steps as part of their various planning and prioritization processes. Step 1: Goal setting considers the results of flood risk assessments, including the characteristics of the region and historic floods, as well as various other factors, such as national policies and guidelines, the consistency and efficiency of existing flood management measures, progress made toward past and/or existing goals, the timing and feasibility of implementing the proposed IUFRM investments, impacts on communities, results of economic evaluation, and so on. These factors inform overall flood risk management goals (both quantitative and qualitative) and a vision for flood risk management at the city level, reflecting societal preferences including acceptable residual risk levels. Various decision-making tools are used in determining citywide goals, including those addressing uncertainty and expected climate change impacts. Step 2: Integrated planning and prioritization processes set an operational framework for implementing citywide flood management goals. This framework outlines the specific targets and responsibilities of the various sectors that will work toward achieving these goals. The distribution of roles and responsibilities among sectors depends on various enabling and limiting factors (i.e., land availability, financial resources, time, technology, and elevation). Once the sectoral allocations and targets are determined, the respective departments strategize how to combine structural and nonstructural measures, including innovative approaches and partnerships, to achieve their flood management targets. Increasingly, nonstructural measures are gaining in importance. Tools include multistakeholder and sectoral consultations, coordination, technical evaluation and feasibility assessments, and cost-benefit analyses. Step 3: Consensus building and responsibility sharing enable engagement and agreement regarding how to determine and implement goals by distributing responsibilities and roles among stakeholders at various stages of IUFRM investments. Building consensus between sectoral departments and citizens can be accomplished through a participatory planning process that may involve a range of activities and initiatives such as conferences, research 1 This four-part series of knowledge notes uses the definition of integrated urban flood risk management put forward by Jha, Bloch, and Lamond (2012). 2 Structural solutions include nature-based solutions—that is, “solutions inspired and supported by nature, which are cost- effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help resilience.” Green infrastructure is a type of nature-based solution defined as, “a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green or blue spaces and other features in terrestrial and marine areas” (European Commission n.d.). Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 2 and development initiatives, simulations, the exchange of experts, public hearings and consultations with the public and private sector, and the use of incentives and legal regulations. In the process, public authorities from national and city governments, private sector developers and operators, community groups, and citizens—including those from vulnerable groups—discuss and define roles and responsibilities for design, construction, and operation and maintenance (O&M). Japan’s experience in IUFRM points to a number of lessons learned, organized here by the particular step involved. Step 1: Goal Setting • Base goals on evidence and regularly update them. The planning process starts with setting citywide goals for flood risk management based on risk assessments of various types of floods that each city may be vulnerable to. Per Knowledge Note 1, risk assessments and associated citywide flood management goals require regular review and update, reflecting changes in climate and hazard risks, urban development contexts, and available data. Based on the evidence, an acceptable level of risk in the specific context needs to be set. • Align local goals with national ones. The Japanese national government leads and coordinates the process, ensuring that local-level efforts reflect the latest thinking on and approaches to integrated flood risk management. While not all cities in Japan have individual flood management plans, given the recent increase in locally concentrated heavy rain (with large economic impacts in urban areas), and the diverse range of city- level solutions available, many cities are taking the initiative to set their own flood risk management goals and associated plans. • Set realistic milestones aligned with long-term goals. Cities are often compelled to set ambitious flood risk management goals in the face of increasing extreme weather events and hazard risks. However, when goals are too ambitious, achieving them becomes a challenge. In response, many cities in Japan have set long-term citywide flood management goals with specific milestones, for the short term (around 5 years), medium term (around 10 years), and long term (around 30 years) that are also segmented by sectoral targets. In general, the long-term target for enhanced rainfall drainage varies between 20 and 90 millimeters (mm)/hour, which corresponds to flood events likely to occur once every 5 to 10 years. The most common target is around 50 mm/ hour. • Consider climate change impacts. Amid a rise in extreme weather events, cities are increasingly aware of the need to integrate climate change risks into flood risk management plans. While integrating city-level climate change risk and impact analysis within the planning process is still rare, Japanese cities are regularly reviewing goals, as well as integrating mechanisms to prepare for unprecedented events, by placing greater focus on nonstructural life-saving measures. Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization • Coordinate to meet shared goals. Interinstitutional coordination and joint responsibility for meeting shared goals is critical in Japan. Sectoral departments (such as those related to rivers, sewerage, watersheds, urban planning, the environment, and DRM) are engaged, together with the community and private stakeholders, in setting citywide flood risk management goals. Once these are established, sector-specific targets are determined, considering the strengths and weaknesses of the given measures. This allows for a coordinated approach to flood risk management without any gaps or overlaps, while maintaining flexibility in how it is adopted to best suit the city’s unique urban and institutional contexts. • Integrate structural (including green) and nonstructural measures. A combination of solutions is used to meet sector-specific flood risk management targets. In Japanese cities, many sectoral departments first determine the structural measures that can be implemented through national and city government initiatives. This is because flood damage occurs all over the country almost every year, and thus structural measures to protect assets and infrastructure are urgently needed. Various factors such as geographic contexts, flood hazards, land availability, financial resources, and community support determine the levels and types of structural measures that can be implemented (as also explored in Knowledge Note 3). Nonstructural measures may be implemented by city governments (including land use planning, zoning and regulatory instruments, flood risk communication, and awareness raising), as well as by households and communities (such as rainwater harvesting and utilization, and community-based DRM) and the private sector (such as stormwater management, including the adoption of green or nature-based approaches). Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 3 • Set priorities based on local contexts. Urban flood risk management plans often designate priority areas within the city where flood risks are high–for example, in Japan, underground commercial areas or transport nodes are prioritized. These areas may have suffered severe flood damage, may be watersheds of large rivers and lakes, or may have commonly high precipitation rates. Higher standards are set for these areas and they are targeted first for investments. In the design phase, these priorities are translated into tailored solutions that provide the expected level of risk protection. Step 3: Consensus-Building and Responsibility Sharing • City governments can help broker partnerships. City governments engage a wide range of stakeholders in sharing responsibility for urban flood risk management. Cities rely on, and coordinate closely with, the national government to set the policy guidelines for flood risk management and to lead large-scale river and coastal structural measures protecting against urban floods. City governments also coordinate closely with the private sector, community groups, and citizens in setting the goals and targets for urban flood risk management and also to garner support and ownership for implementation and O&M. • Expand the role of the private sector and community actors. When floods strike, they can disrupt services, production, and functioning of businesses, affecting the local and national economy, and even regional and global patterns. With increasing disaster exposure, the role of private firms and community members in flood management investments is increasing in cities in Japan in line with the increasing and diversifying risks of urban floods. Along with this, cities are exploring diverse incentive mechanisms to engage and coordinate with new actors. To do so, flood risk management priorities are tackled concurrently with various other emerging priorities such as environmental sustainability, livability, and social assets. 2. Urban Flood Risk Management in Japan: Evolution and Stakeholders 2.1 The Evolution of Urban Flood Risk Management in Japan The rapid urbanization of the 1960s and 1970s increased the impacts of urban floods in Japan. In response, the concept of coordinating river, sewerage, and watershed measures was born. In 1979, Comprehensive Flood Risk Management Measures (CFRMMs) were developed to meet the urgent needs for river improvement and runoff management in watersheds running through rapidly urbanized areas. The measures were implemented along 17 rivers. The CFRMM encouraged river management authorities (mainly from the national government) and urban development authorities (mainly from local governments) to work collaboratively to enhance cities’ resilience in the face of flood risks. Although many benefits were realized, initial targets were not achieved. Only 50 percent of watershed measures and 70 percent of river measures were implemented due to rapid urbanization and budget constraints. Furthermore, the CFRMM initially focused on river floods, to the exclusion of other flood types. Also, no comprehensive measures against inundation were implemented (Research Group of Specific Urban River Innundation Measures 2004). With increasing extreme weather events, some local governments, as administrators of sewerage systems, developed independent city-level plans for heavy rain and flood risk management to address unique hazard, geographic, and urban contexts to better protect their communities. Examples include the Tokyo Metropolitan Government’s (TMG’s) Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management, Shiga Prefecture’s Basic Policy for Watershed Flood Management, and Setagaya Ward’s Basic Policy for Heavy Rain. These take an integrated approach that includes structural investments needed for river and sewerage management, non-infrastructure urban planning and design tools, preparedness and evacuation measures, as well as green infrastructure solutions. Innovative efforts in the Tsurumi River Watershed in 1981 were instrumental in advancing the watershed-wide approach to flood risk management in Japan.3 This was the first initiative in Japan to establish a watershed-wide investment plan, integrating hard infrastructure improvement measures with softer nature-based solutions such as 3 Watershed measures include storage facilities such as detention ponds and reservoirs, stormwater infiltration inlets and trenches, and permeable pavements. Although sewerage systems are involved in watershed measures, they are discussed separately. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 4 water retention ponds and retarding basins. In 2005, the Tsurumi River Watershed was recognized by the national Act on Countermeasures against Flood Damage of Specified Rivers Running Across Cities. This advanced watershed- wide collaboration across sectors and stakeholders featured targets based on the scientific modeling of risks using historical data and climate change forecasts. Tools and approaches to promote consensus building among various stakeholders, including citizens, were also developed and utilized. The concept of an integrated approach to flood management was further advanced through the introduction of the Specific Urban Flood Damage Measures Law (SUFDML), enacted in 2003 for eight designated rivers. This mandated that river management authorities protect urban areas and take flood management measures within and beyond each watershed. The law instructed the development of an integrated flood management plan between river and sewerage management authorities. It led to not only horizontal collaboration between national and local governments, but also lateral engagements promoting collaboration between public and private sectors. The law also defined requirements for the private sector, including the installation of stormwater storage and infiltration facilities, and collaboration with river and sewerage administrators on planning and implementing flood management measures such as water discharge, the hydraulic analysis of river and surface water floods, and the operational rules of pumping stations. In 2013, a 100 mm/hour Safety Plan was initiated by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) to tackle the increasing impacts of concentrated heavy rain in urban areas. The plan clarifies the responsibilities of each local government department and authority, the participation of residential communities and the private sector, and flood management measures to prevent inundation in urban and residential areas. Responsibility for the safety plan is held by the local government and the public authorities for river and sewerage management. For private and public developers registered under the Safety Plan, eligibility criteria for MLIT’s subsidy for stormwater storage and infiltration projects is relaxed.4 These financial incentives help drive a multisectoral approach to urban flood risk management. 2.2 Institutional Arrangements and Key Stakeholders in Urban Flood Risk Management in Japan IUFRM is based on collaboration and role sharing among various sectors and stakeholders. Urban floods caused by poor solid waste management are outside the scope of this study.5 In accordance with national laws, policies, and guidelines, the departments managing rivers, drainage and sewerage, watersheds, urban planning and development, the environment, and DRM collaborate to determine and share responsibility for actions to address identified flood risks.6 Furthermore, stakeholders such as national and local governments, the private sector, citizens, and academia work together to set and achieve shared goals for mitigating the risks and damages of urban floods. The key stakeholders involved and their roles and responsibilities for IUFRM in Japan are highlighted in table 1. This broad division aligns with the administrative context in Japan, as noted in box 1. In the following sections, this Knowledge Note focuses on examining the role of local governments—including at the prefecture and municipal levels—in advancing integrated flood risk management in Japan.7 4 Water storage and infiltration facilities with 500 cubic meters (m3) or more capacity are eligible for MLIT’s social capital improvement grant. This threshold is relaxed to 300 m3 for entities registered with the 100 mm/hour Safety Plan. 5 For more information, please see: TDLC on SWM and Urban Flood case study from Kitakyushu City (World Bank 2017). 6 This series of Knowledge Notes does not include information on solid waste management. For a case study related to solid waste management and urban flood risk management, please refer to World Bank (2017). 7 Watershed-level efforts led by the national government across multiple municipal boundaries are beyond the scope of this note. Therefore, the Comprehensive Flood Risk Management Measures (CFRMM) and the Specific Urban Flood Damage Measures Law (SUFDML), led by the national government, are not included. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 5 Box 1: Overview of Governance Structure and Geographical Features in Japan Public: The local government system in Japan consists of two tiers: prefectures and 119,000 mthe 3 municipalities that make up the prefectures. Prefectures and municipalities Remaining gap are both local public entities of 12%equal status and cooperate in local administration according to their share of duties. 641,000 m 3 68% Private: 195,000 m3 Prefectures are regional authorities comprising municipalities, and are in charge 20% of broader regional administration. Japan is made up of 47 prefectures and Tokyo, governed by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG), is one of these regional authorities. Municipalities are local public entities that have a strong and direct relationship with local residents and handle affairs directly related to them, such as disaster risk management. As of January 1, 2015, there are 790 cities, 745 towns, and 183 villages in Japan. There are no essential differences between cities, towns, and villages in their responsibilities. A municipality with a population of 50,000 or more and meeting various other requirements is recognized as a city. In addition to ordinary local public entities such as prefectures and municipalities, there are special local public entities that have been established for specific objectives relating to local government. These include special wards, cooperatives, and public property districts. Tokyo’s 23 special wards are, in principle, subject to the same regulations that apply to cities. The special ward system, however, has been designed to meet the distinctive needs of a large metropolis. For more information, please see http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/STRUCTURE/structure01.htm. Setagaya Ward Basic Strategy & Action Plan Related Legal and Policy Frameworks Geographically, compared with other countries in the world, Japan has a large share of mountainous terrain within Urban Development its small Policy land area, National: area Comprehensive which inevitably makes each river’s watershed small and Flood Risk length short. Rivers its overall Management Plans run a short distance while the height difference from the upper to lower stream is significant. Such relatively steep Heavy Rain Basic Policy & Action Plan rivers have fast water velocity, and this is likely to cause sudden changes in water Tokyo Metropolitan Basic Policy after heavy levels downstream Government: rain events. For more information, Other Individual Plans & Policies please see https://www.mlit.go.jp/river/pamphlet_jirei/kasen/gaiyou/panf/ for Heavy Rain Management & Action Plans gaiyou2005/pdf/c1.pdf. Setagaya Green Basic Plan and Action Plan Setagaya Ward: Flood Defense Plan (Flood Defense Law Article 32) etc... Figure B1.1: Selected Rivers’ Elevation and Distance: An International Comparison Elevation (m) Loire (France) Colorado (USA) Joganji Garonne (France) 1,000 Kiso Yodo 800 Fuji Arakawa Rivers in Japan Rivers in the world 600 Yoshino Seine (France) Shinano 400 Rhône (France) Mekong (Thailand et al.) 200 Tone Nile (Egypt et al.) Mississippi (USA) 0 Amazon (Brazil, Peru) 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Distance from the River’s Mouth (km) Source: National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management 2004. Note: m = meter, km = kilometer Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 6 Table 1: Sharing Responsibility for the Integrated Management of Flood Risk in Japan Stakeholders Major Roles and Responsibilities •Developing a basic national framework of laws, policies, programs for implementation, ood risk manage- ment targets, and technical standards; instructing and supervising implementing entities. •Developing a basic policy for river improvement plans; conducting e ective and e cient improvements as the administrator of Class A rivers as stated in the River Law. Government •Conducting disaster risk assessment in areas under its jurisdiction; publishing and disseminating risk National information. •Collecting and communicating disaster warnings and information. •Conducting disaster recovery activities promptly. •Assisting and arranging disaster prevention activities of prefectural governments and related organizations. •Establishing and enhancing ood prevention systems and organizations; advising and supervising municipal governments. •Promoting awareness of ood risk mitigation and river management. •Developing a basic prefectural framework of ordinances, programs, policies, management goals and targets in line with national guidelines; instructing and supervising implementing entities. •Developing a basic policy for river improvement plans; conducting e ective and e cient improvements as the river administrator of Class B rivers. •Participating in the process of developing the national government’s river improvement plans. •Developing and implementing urban planning and land use plans (that, for example, indicate where construction may be promoted, and enforce building regulations). Prefectures •Installing and conducting O&M of stormwater storage and in ltration facilities in areas under their jurisdiction. •Supervising municipal governments in stormwater drainage and treatment. •In coordination with the national government, conducting disaster risk assessments in areas under their jurisdiction; publishing and disseminating risk information. •Collecting and communicating disaster warnings and information. Public •Conducting disaster recovery activities promptly by coordinating with national and municipal governments. •Assisting and arranging disaster prevention activities of municipal governments and related organizations. •Establishing and enhancing ood preventions systems and organizations; advising and supervising municipal governments on ood prevention. •Promoting awareness of ood risk mitigation and river management. •Developing a basic municipal framework of ordinances, programs, policies, management goals and targets in line with prefectural and national guidelines; instructing and supervising implementing entities. •Developing basic policy for river improvement plans; conducting e ective and e cient improvements as the administrators of small rivers. (cities, wards, towns, villages, etc) •Participating in the process of developing the national and prefectural governments’ river improvement plans. Municipal Governments •Developing stormwater drainage improvement plans; conducting e ective and e cient drainage improve- ments as the sewer administrator. •Installing and conducting O&M of stormwater storage and in ltration measures at facilities under their jurisdiction. •Aligning ood management with urban planning and land use plans. •Developing and implementing municipal master plans. •Supervising stormwater treatment in development areas. •Proceeding with watershed measures and assisting citizens. •Communicating with citizens. •Collecting and communicating disaster warnings and information. •Directing evacuation, guiding evacuees, and establishing shelters. •Developing ood response organizations and preparing emergency equipment and stocks. •Developing and distributing hazard maps. •Promoting awareness of ood risk mitigation and river management. •Providing academic knowledge and analysis to inform tools and solutions for ood risk assessments, target Academia setting, and standards and guidelines for investment design. •Leading discussions in committees to inform laws, policies, and standards. •Understanding and cooperating in river improvement and requirements and targets for watershed measures. •Installing and conducting O&M of stormwater storage and in ltration facilities. Private Sector •Conducting R&D of industrial technology on disaster prevention, damage risk mitigation, and related elds. •Investing in and installing stormwater storage and in ltration measures and promoting green infrastructure in the development sites. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management •Participating in the process of developing river improvement plans. •Developing and distributing hazard maps. •Promoting awareness of ood risk mitigation and river management. •Providing academic knowledge and analysis to inform tools and solutions for ood risk assessments, target Academia Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 7 setting, and standards and guidelines for investment design. •Leading discussions in committees to inform laws, policies, and standards. •Understanding and cooperating in river improvement and requirements and targets for watershed measures. •Installing and conducting O&M of stormwater storage and in ltration facilities. Private Sector •Conducting R&D of industrial technology on disaster prevention, damage risk mitigation, and related elds. •Investing in and installing stormwater storage and in ltration measures and promoting green infrastructure in the development sites. •Participating in the process of developing river improvement plans. •Understanding river improvement and watershed measures, and cooperating in the design and implementation processes. Citizens •Understanding, cooperating, and implementing household and community level stormwater management initiatives. •Leading the O&M of stormwater storage and in ltration facilities at each household and in communities. •Participating in local disaster prevention activities, including those related to urban oods. Source: Authors’ compilation. Damage (number of houses) Prefecture City Flood above Flood below 2.3 City-Level Flood Management Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level Total In Japan, city-level Okayama flood management Okayama plans are formulated and implemented 1,687 3,728 by sectoral departments in 5,415 coordination with Kurumeto ensure the423 river departments Fukuoka drainage planning consistency of city 1,011 with river management 1,434 plans.8 Sectoral departments Hiroshima include Fukuyama those responsible 751 for rivers, sewerage 638 and drainage, 1,389 watersheds, urban environment, and development, the ... ... DRM. The risk of storm surge floods is limited to cities located near the coasts, and landslides happen only in cities located in mountainous areas. Measures against storm surge floods, landslides, Total (88 local governments) 6,104 12,749 18,853 tsunamis, and typhoons are treated in different plans developed by various departments and sectors.9 However, in local governments’ DRM and preparedness plans, all flood risks mentioned above are integrated comprehensively, along with other disaster risks. This Knowledge Note focuses on the lessons learned Japan (Nationwide) from IUFRM planning for river Tokyo floods, surface water floods, and a combination of the two.10 River oods: 44% Surface water oods: 56% River oods: 13% Surface water oods: 87% At Approx. damage ￥1.9 trillion the planning stage, flood risks Approx. ￥2.4 trillion are categorized damage by their source: Approx. damage ￥25 river, surface billion water, storm damage Approx. ￥184 surge, or multiple billion 11 sources. (US$ 17.2 intended billion) In many cases, planning is(US$ to tackle(US$ 21.8 billion) risks of million) 227 both river and surface water floods. Policies (US$ and 1.7 billion) plans that consolidate river, sewerage, and watershed improvement measures include the Tokyo Metropolitan Government’s (TMG’s) Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management, Shiga Prefecture’s Basic Policy for Watershed Flood Management, and Setagaya Ward’s Basic Policy for Heavy Rain.12 A recent initiative, the 100 mm/hour Safety Plan, actively coordinates role sharing between various local government departments as well as between civil society and private companies. Many Japanese cities have also developed sewerage or stormwater management plans in 8 The national government formulates legal frameworks (such as the Flood Prevention Act, Landslide Disaster Prevention Law, River Law, and acts involving special measures for tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic activity, and nuclear power) and (Approximate guidelines for both prefectural and city-level governments to develop specific and localized numbers) plans. disaster prevention 9 Although different prefectures Assumed Climate and municipalities Change in have unique organizational Change in Flow structures, in general, storm surge Change in Flood flood, tsunami, and typhoon measures are normally Change Scenarios Rainfallled and departments by agenciesVolume Volume responsible Occurrence for ports. Typhoon and Probability earthquake predictions and preparedness are normally led by departments and units responsible for DRM and/or weather RCB8.5 forecasting. Landslides are often led 1.3 times by the construction 4 times floods are often led by 1.4 times DRM division. Surface or road department’s (Equivalent to 4°C higher) a sewerage management division, and river floods by river management / construction divisions (though large-scale rivers RCB2.6 1.1 times 1.2 times 2 times are led by MLIT). (Equivalent to 2°C higher) 10 This series of notes does not deal with the challenge of flash floods in depth; for a short case study, please refer to Knowledge Note 1. 11 Broad categories of urban flood risks are: river floods (caused by river overflow); surface water floods (caused by poor drainage of heavy rain in urban areas); and storm surge floods (caused by raised sea level due to low air pressure). 12 Cities base their independent flood management plans on several factors. Some cities are prone to surface water floods, and so cannot rely only on the national government for support managing river floods. Many of these are big cities with a high concentration Urbanization of people and assets that require protection, and are led by a strong Climate change In addition to the administration. examples detailed in box 2, cities with independent flood risk management plans include Osaka, Yokohama, Kyoto, Fukuoka, and Sapporo. Increase in the surface runo Increase in the amount of rainfall Sea level rise Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Increase in the number of oods •Proceeding with watershed municipal governments on measures and assisting citizens. ood prevention. (cities •Communicating •Promoting with citizens. awareness of ood risk mitigation and river management. •Collecting and communicating disaster warnings and information. •Developing guiding framework a basic municipal •Directing evacuation, evacuees, and of ordinances, establishing programs, shelters. policies, management goals and targets in line with prefectural •Developing and national ood response guidelines; organizations and instructing and supervising preparing emergency implementing equipment entities. and stocks. Knowledge Note anddistributing 2: Planningbasic •Developing and Prioritizing Urban policy for river hazard maps.Risk Management Flood improvement plans; conductingInvestments e ective and e cient improvements as the 8 administrators •Promoting of small awareness ofrivers. ood risk mitigation and river management. (cities, wards, towns, villages, etc) •Participating in the process of developing the national and prefectural governments’ river improvement accordance with national flood management policies. Approximately 1,400 cities, wards, towns, and villages in plans. Japan (about 80 percent academic Municipal Governments •Providing of all municipalities) knowledge and have sewerage analysis management to plans; inform plans, tools and solutions andfor about ood 900 risk of themimprove- assessments,also have target Academia •Developing stormwater drainage improvement conducting e ective and e cient drainage stormwater management setting, ments and as plans the (Japan standards sewer andSewage guidelines administrator. Works forAssociation 2018). investment design. •Leading •Installingdiscussions and conductingin committees to inform laws, O&M of stormwater policies, storage and inand standards. ltration measures at facilities under their jurisdiction. Considering Change and Uncertainty •Aligning ood management with urban planning and land use plans. •Developing •Understanding andandimplementing cooperating municipal master plans. in river improvement and requirements and targets for watershed measures. Changing rainfall patterns have increased the frequency of locally concentrated heavy rain, which is now one of •Supervising •Installing and stormwater conducting treatment in development O&M of stormwater areas. storage and in ltration facilities. Private Sector the major causes of urban •Proceeding •Conducting floods with R&D in Japanese watershed of industrial measures cities. technology andon This is in assisting disaster large part damage citizens. prevention, due to therisk limited water mitigation, andretention and related elds. infiltration capacities ofin •Communicating •Investing the andurban with landscape. citizens. installing stormwater example, For storage and inJuly in 2018, ltration 19 prefectures measures and 88 and promoting municipalities green in infrastructure central-western inJapan •Collecting andseverely were the development communicating sites. impacted by surface disaster warnings water and floods, largely due to concentrated heavy rain (see information. •Directing table 2). Of the 29,000evacuation, guiding evacuees, houses inundated nationwide, and establishing approximately shelters. 19,000 were due to surface water floods •Developing (see MLIT 2018a). A ood response combination of organizations short-term and locally preparing emergency concentrated heavy equipment rain, together stocks. andwith long-term rain that •Participating in the process of developing river improvement plans. •Developing and distributing hazard maps. multiple days, river continued for •Understanding led to an overflow improvement and surface water, of watershed exceeding measures, seweragein and cooperating and the rainwater design andmanagement •Promoting awareness of ood risk mitigation and river management. capacity. Betweenimplementation June 28 and processes. July 8, 2019 (11 days), 102 of Japan’s 1,600 rainfall stations recorded a heavy Citizens maximum hourly rainfall of cooperating, •Understanding, more than 50 implementing andmm/hour. household and Additionally, 189 community level stormwater rainfall stations observedmanagement a very high initiatives. •Providing academic knowledge and hours. to inform tools and solutions for ood risk assessments, target analysis Academia cumulative rainfall of more than 300 mm over 48 •Leading the O&M setting, and of stormwater standards storage and guidelines and for in ltration investment facilities at each household and in communities. design. •Participating •Leading in localin discussions disaster prevention committees activities, to inform including laws, policies, andthose related to urban oods. standards. Table 2: Overview of Flood Damages Caused by Heavy Rain in July 2018 Damage (number •Understanding and cooperating in river improvement of houses)and targets for watershed measures. and requirements •Installing and conducting O&M of stormwater storage and in ltration facilities. Private Sector City Prefecture R&D of industrial Flood above Flood below •Conducting Total technology on disaster prevention, damage risk mitigation, and related elds. Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level •Investing in and installing stormwater storage and in ltration measures and promoting green infrastructure in the development Okayama sites. Okayama 1,687 3,728 5,415 Fukuoka Kurume 423 1,011 1,434 •Participating Hiroshima in the process Fukuyama of developing river 751 improvement plans. 638 1,389 •Understanding river improvement and watershed measures, and cooperating in the design and ... ... implementation processes. Citizens •Understanding, 6,104 household and cooperating, and implementing Total (88 local governments) stormwater management community level18,853 12,749 initiatives. •Leading the O&M of stormwater storage and in ltration facilities at each household and in communities. •Participating Source in local disaster : Authors’ prevention compilation. activities, including those related to urban oods. Japan (Nationwide) Tokyo oods: 44% cities’ capacity to River Improving manage Surface the oods: water of surface risks 56% oods: floods River water 13% is increasingly important, and Surface water local oods: 87% Approx. damage ￥1.9 governments trillion have Approx. a critical damage role to ￥2.4 play in trillion Damage understanding Approx.(number damage these ￥ risks of houses) and billion 25coordinatingApprox. damage ￥ an integrated 184 billion solution. (US$ 17.2 billion) with river floods, surface(US$ Compared 21.8 billion) less227 (US$ million) (US$ billion) 1.7their Prefecture City water floods Flood have above impact occur more often in Japan. butbelow Flood Total And Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level frequency is increasing amid the rise in extremely concentrated heavy rains due to climate change. Nearly 70 percent of building damage caused by floods in Japan over the past decade is due to surface water (210,000 of Okayama Okayama 1,687 3,728 5,415 the 310,000 total buildings damaged over the past 10 years) (MLIT n.d.[a]). In terms of economic damage, around Fukuoka Kurume 46 percent of flood damage costs in Japan, and 80 423 1,011 percent of flood damage 1,434 costs in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area Hiroshima between 1993 and Fukuyama 2002, were due 638 the economic 751 Figure 1 illustrates to surface water floods. 1,389 costs of floods in Japan ... ... in general and Tokyo in specific due to surface and river floods. Total (88 local governments) 6,104 12,749 18,853 Figure 1: Share of Total Flood Damage Due to River and Surface Water Floods, 1997–2006 Japan (Nationwide) (Approximate Tokyo numbers) Assumed Climate Change in Change in Flow Change in Flood River oods: 44% Change Scenarios Rainfall Surface water oods: Volume 56% Volume River oods: 13% Occurrence Probability Surface water oods: 87% Approx. damage ￥2.4 trillion Approx. damage ￥25 billion Approx. damage ￥1.9 trillion RCB8.5 Approx. damage ￥184 billion (US$ 17.2 billion) (US$ 21.8 1.3 times (US$ 2271.4 billion) times million) 4 times (US$ 1.7 billion) (Equivalent to 4°C higher) RCB2.6 1.1 times 1.2 times 2 times (Equivalent to 2°C higher) Urbanization Source: Modified based on information from MLIT (2009). Climate change (Approximate numbers) Assumed Climate Change in Change in Flow Change in Flood River oods: 44% Surface water oods: 56% River oods: 13% Surface water oods: 87% •Providing academic knowledge and￥analysis to inform tools and solutions for ood risk assessments, target Academia Approx. damage ￥1.9 trillion Approx. damage 2.4 trillion Approx. damage ￥25 billion Approx. damage ￥184 billion setting, (US$ 17.2 billion) and standards and guidelines for investment design. (US$ 21.8 billion) (US$ 227 million) (US$ 1.7 billion) •Leading discussions in committees to inform laws, policies, and standards. Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 9 •Understanding and cooperating in river improvement and requirements and targets for watershed measures. •Installing andwith Cities, in collaboration O&M of government the national conducting stormwater storageand research institutes, and in ltration are exploring various ways to facilities. Private Sector and integrate understand •Conducting R&D climate change of industrial risks within technology theirprevention, on disaster flood management damage risk plans. Climate mitigation, andchange related impacts, elds. combined with urbanization, •Investing can exacerbate in and installing stormwater the risks storage and urban of in floods. ltration Climate measures change tends and promoting greento make rainfall infrastructure patterns more in the development extreme sites. and unpredictable, often increasing short-term (concentrated) and long-term (cumulative) rainfall. This increases the frequency of floods, especially in urban areas due to the higher occurrence of surface water runoff. As sea levels •Participating rise, in the vulnerable process low-lying of developing riverareas are increasingly improvement plans. exposed to flood (Approximate risks (Ishiwatari numbers) •Understanding 2016). Figure 2 illustrates river Assumed improvement the interaction Climate and watershed of these elements. Change in measures, Change and By thein end cooperating Flow of the 21st in the design century, Change in Flood and the MLIT estimates implementation processes. Citizens that the amount of rainfall in Japan Change will be approximately Scenarios Rainfall Volume1.3 times greater, the frequency Volume of floods about 1.4 times Occurrence Probability the probabilitycooperating, higher, and •Understanding, of RCB8.5 and implementing household and community level stormwater management flood occurrence nearly 4.0 times higher than today (see table 3) (MLIT 2018b).13 initiatives. 1.3 times 1.4 times 4 times These climate change •Leading the projections, (Equivalent O&M ofto 4°Ctogether higher) with recent experiences of unprecedented and extreme flood events stormwater storage and in ltration facilities at each household and in communities. throughout Japan, are compelling •Participating RCB2.6 in local Japanese disaster prevention further advance cities toactivities, includingtheir thoseflood riskto related plans. urban oods. 1.1 times 1.2 times 2 times (Equivalent to 2°C higher) Damage (number of houses) Figure 2: Relationship and Effects of Climate Change, Urbanization, and Increasing Flood Damages Prefecture City Flood above Flood below Total Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level Okayama Urbanization Okayama 1,687 3,728 Climate change 5,415 Fukuoka Kurume 423 1,011 1,434 Hiroshima Fukuyama 751 638 1,389 Increase in the surface runo Increase in the amount of rainfall Sea level rise ... ... Total (88 local governments) 6,104 12,749 18,853 Increase in the number of oods Japan (Nationwide) Tokyo Increase in houses and buildings Aggravation of ooding Expansion of hazardous areas River oods: 44% Surface water oods: 56% River oods: 13% Surface water oods: 87% Approx. damage ￥1.9 trillion Approx. damage ￥2.4 trillion Approx. damage ￥25 billion Approx. damage ￥184 billion (US$ 17.2 billion) (US$ 21.8 billion) Increase (US$ in ood 227 million) damages (US$ 1.7 billion) Source: Modified based on information from Ishiwatari (2016). Table 3: Future Rainfall Levels, Flood Frequency, and Probability of Flood Occurrence According to Different Climate Change Scenarios (Approximate numbers) Assumed Climate Change in Change in Flow Change in Flood Change Scenarios Rainfall Volume Volume Occurrence Probability RCB8.5 1.3 times Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) timesPrefecture 1.4 Shiga 4 times (Equivalent to 4°C higher) RCB2.6 1.1Rain TMG Basic Policy for Heavy Shiga Prefecture Basic 2 Management 1.2 times Policy for Watershed Policy Latest times times (Update), (Equivalent 2014 to 2°C higher) Flood Management, 2012 • •To avoid loss of lives from any type of oods •No inundation from rainfall of up to • Source : Authors’ compilation, based (top on priority). MLIT (2018c). 60(mm)/hour. •To avoid ood damages and associated Urban Flood Risk Management Goal consider Note: These scenarios •No above-the ratio oor of change ooding in rainfall in residential volume and areas flow volume between (i) 1951–2011 and (ii) 2090. impacts to livelihoods from: from a 1-in-20-year rainfall (this translates to 75mm/hour in the more urbanized eastern -The maximum rainfall observed since Urbanization areas and 65mm/hour in less urbanized areas, World WarClimate change II (equivalent to once in 50 to such as Tama). 100 years)—for the design of ood •No casualty caused by any rainfall, including management measures for areas in the when the amount of rainfall exceeds historical 13 TheIncrease Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change (IPCC) on levels. forecasts watersheds climate of large change andrivers a evaluates environmental in the surface maximum runo target Increase in the amount of rainfall -1-in-10-year Sea level rainfall (50 mm/hour)—for rise assessments using Representative Concentration •River, water, Pathway and watershed-wide scenarios. RCP (RCP) risk disaster 8.5 is characterized the design of ood management by a continuous upward after 2100. (DRM) trend in radiative forcingmanagement In RCP orts, e 2.5, bycollectively contrast, this would peak measures by 2100 and in thedecrease thereafter. watersheds of small managing up to 10 mm/hour rainfall. rivers b Increase in the number of oods Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management -1-in-5-year to 1-in-10-year rainfall (50mm/hour)—for the design of storm- water drainage systems Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 10 3. Planning and Prioritizing Investments in Urban Flood Risk Management The planning and prioritization process in Japan generally involves three key steps, detailed below. Step 1: Goal Setting How do Japanese cities determine the overall goals of urban flood risk management? In Japan, urban flood risk management plans and objectives are developed in line with the national Disaster Countermeasures Basic Law (DCBL). This law clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the national, prefectural, and municipal governments, and public entities for DRM, and mandates that these entities develop and implement individual DRM plans. Citizens are also required to implement voluntary preparedness and mitigation measures under this law. Therefore, the cities’ urban flood risk management goals are also set to directly contribute to the cities’ mandate under the DCBL—and to work with various stakeholders to protect citizens’ lives and assets and maintain public order and social welfare in the event of natural disasters, including floods. Based on this high-level goal, specific long- and short-term targets are developed to address the unique flood risks and geographic contexts of each city. Cities often define their flood risk management targets as the level of rainfall (such as hourly maximum rainfall or return periods) they aim to manage without inundation and/or damage to citizens’ lives and assets based on the results of risk assessments and flood forecasting and simulations informed by scientific data and expertise (see Knowledge Note 1). Japanese cities also review the damage records from the worst historical floods recorded. Additionally, ensuring coherence with national laws, directives, policies, standards, and programs is a key consideration for municipal governments as they determine their target level of risk management. City governments often put together a panel of experts from various sectors, including academia, to review technical viability, economic efficiency, social and environmental impacts, and alignment with legal and policy frameworks. For example, the goal-setting process undertaken by the Tokyo Metropolitan Area and Shiga Prefecture is summarized in table 4. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 11 Table 4: Urban Flood Risk Management Goals and Decision-Making Tools and Processes in Tokyo and Shiga Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) Shiga Prefecture TMG Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management Shiga Prefecture Basic Policy for Watershed Policy Latest (Update), 2014 Flood Management, 2012 • •To avoid loss of lives from any type of oods •No inundation from rainfall of up to • (top priority). 60(mm)/hour. •To avoid ood damages and associated Urban Flood Risk Management Goal •No above- oor ooding in residential areas impacts to livelihoods from: from a 1-in-20-year rainfall (this translates to 75mm/hour in the more urbanized eastern -The maximum rainfall observed since areas and 65mm/hour in less urbanized areas, World War II (equivalent to once in 50 to such as Tama). 100 years)—for the design of ood •No casualty caused by any rainfall, including management measures for areas in the when the amount of rainfall exceeds historical watersheds of large rivers a maximum target levels. -1-in-10-year rainfall (50 mm/hour)—for •River, water, and watershed-wide disaster risk the design of ood management management (DRM) e orts, collectively measures in the watersheds of small managing up to 10 mm/hour rainfall. rivers b -1-in-5-year to 1-in-10-year rainfall (50mm/hour)—for the design of storm- water drainage systems Goals are decided through a technical commit- Flood management goals within the Basic Policy tee consisting of relevant departments, for Watershed Flood Management (March 2012) academia, and public consultations attended by were established by consultation and with Decision-making Tools & Processes citizens and civil society groups. During the inputs om: (i) a practitioner’s committee revision process of the TMG’s Basic Policy for comprised of related government entities, (ii) a Heavy Rain Management (Update), 2014, Tokyo citizens’ conference, and (iii) a technical updated its ood management goals based on committee comprised of academics. recommendations from the Technical Commit- tee, which comprised of TMG’s Bureau of Urban Development (which manages urban develop- ment, watershed management, and relation- ships with academia), the River Management Division of the Bureau of Construction (the river administrator), and the Bureau of Sewer- age (the sewerage system administrator). Consultations with citizens were conducted and views were integrated toward the nalization of the goals. Sources: Authors’ compilation based on Shiga Prefecture (2012b) and TMG (2014). a Rivers with a watershed area of 50 square kilometers (km2) or more. b Rivers with a watershed area of less than 50 km2. For cities to cope with uncertain climate change risks, having an integrated flood risk management goal that involves both structural and nonstructural approaches is critical. Cities are increasingly aware of the need to prepare for Type of of Flood Examples floods unprecedented Key the that exceed Stakeholders Engaged anticipated Governments by Localscenarios, worst-case anin Investmentthat awareness Planning was and heightened in Risk when Flood 2015, Management Measures Prioritization a series of large floods affected many cities in Japan. Many such cities now expect large-scale flood events River whose impacts would notMLIT improvement ( nancing be fully and standards); manageable by infrastructure investments alone but would require non- (levees) Local community (consensus building) River infrastructural, ood society-wide approaches. According to one national-level guideline, “the capacity of structural Local community (consensus building, design, O&M); measuresReservoirs / parks has limits, and large-scale floods (that exceed the management capacities of infrastructure) will happen” Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities ) (MLIT n.d.[b]). Sewerage system the MLIT instructs cities to estimate possible inundation areas using probable maximum Therefore, precipitation forecasts to develop MLIT ( nancing city-level andrisk flood standards); maps (MLIT 2015). This updated guidance is in accordance improvement with the 2015 revisions to the Flood Prevention MLIT (standards); Act (Library of Congress 2015), and is based on lessons learned from the 2015 floods that Underground cisterns exceeded the design level of existing O&M); measures (MLIT 2015). The range of structural Public schools (construction of facilities, rainfall intensities and associated management Private goalsconstruction, rms (design, set in cities in Japan is nancing, summarized O&M in box 2. Knowledge Note of facilities) 1 describes some of the nonstructural Private activities, such rms (design, nancing, informed as climate-change construction, risk mapping and evacuation O&M of facilities); Surface Rainwater harvesting planning. Community and households (consensus building, design, construction, nancing, water systems O&M of facilities) ood Water retention / MLIT (standards); Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management detention ponds Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities) Local community and households (consensus building, design, construction , Green infrastructure nancing, O&M of facilities); Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 12 Box 2: Stormwater Management Goals: Rainfall Intensity Used to Plan Sewerage Improvements The median design rainfall intensity used for sewerage planning is around 50 millimeters (mm)/hour. The areas with rainfall intensity levels that exceed this include Okinawa, Kochi, Nagasaki, and Mie; these are regarded as heavy rain regions. Also, the following major cities have relatively high rainfall intensity levels and have set design goals above the national rainfall intensity average: Yokohama (74 mm/hour), Nagoya (60mm/hour), Osaka (60 mm/ hour), and Fukuoka (79.5 mm/hour). Source: Authors’ compilation. Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization How are flood risk management plans and priorities aligned across various sectoral departments and diverse regions? As part of interinstitutional coordination, city planners and managers assign roles and responsibilities among relevant sectoral departments to achieve citywide goals. This distribution is based on various factors such as the city’s development strategies, citywide and sectoral visions, and unique geographic contexts (proximity to a river, availability of permeable surface, etc.) and sociopolitical conditions. In the case of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG), the distribution of roles and responsibilities across departments was informed by technical feasibility and economic analyses conducted within municipal subdivisions. Based on the assigned sectoral targets, each department then develops its own investment plans, priority measures (structural and nonstructural), and schedules, according to department visions, budgets, the available range of opportunities, options and limitations (i.e., available land, etc.), and inputs from technical committees and panels. More specifically, under the citywide goal, each responsible sectoral department determines its individual runoff reduction target and forecasted rainfall levels. Based on these targets, each department then selects and prioritizes appropriate flood management measures by reviewing the technical effectiveness, economic efficiency, feasibility, and speed with which investments will have an effect. Knowledge Note 3 provides a discussion of the specific factors and criteria considered by cities in designing and implementing IUFRM investments. Wherever possible, departments coordinate with one another during the implementation of their flood management measures. Inter-institutional coordination extends to sequencing the construction of investments or integrating the flood risk management capacity of an investment implemented by another sector. To enhance coordination, many cities in Japan, including Tokyo, have departmental staff exchange programs, especially between the river and sewerage departments. These programs enable the interdepartmental coordination and collaboration necessary for integrated planning and prioritization through: (i) setting citywide shared goals for urban flood risk management; (ii) discussing and distributing roles and responsibilities among the relevant sectoral departments to achieve the shared goals; (iii) encouraging responsible sectoral departments to agree on their individual target runoff reduction and design rainfall levels; and (iv) encouraging departments to coordinate with one other during the implementation of their flood management measures. Cities also prioritize certain regions or measures based on different regional flood risk contexts. For example, the Tokyo Metropolitan Area was divided into subregions based on similar geographic and rainfall patterns during the IUFRM planning and prioritization process. The process is described in box 3. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 13 Box 3: Planning and Prioritizing Measures to Address Urban Floods in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area The Tokyo Metropolitan Area can be divided into two areas based on flood susceptibility: (i) the eastern side (including the Koto five-ward area), which is undergoing rapid urbanization; and (ii) the western side (Tama area), which is relatively rich in forests and farmlands (figure B3.1). Figure B3.1: Tokyo Metropolitan Area: Aerial Image Koto and 4 other Tama Wards 23 Wards Setagaya Ward Tokyo 5km Bay Source: Google Earth. Note: km = kilometer. In the Koto five-ward area in East Tokyo, many neighborhoods are low lying, practically at sea level, with high ground water levels, making them susceptible to flooding. Given the geographic characteristics of the area, pumping facilities, together with enhanced flood risk preparedness and awareness-raising actions in communities, are prioritized as the most technically and economically efficient measures for the effective management of flood risks. Therefore, in this area, the sewerage and disaster risk management departments take on a large share of the responsibility for flood risk management. In locations where it is difficult to install pumping stations due to land scarcity, stormwater retention ponds are often implemented as an alternative. The western Tama area, on the other hand, is characterized by high land elevation and frequent occurrence of concentrated heavy rains. Heavy rains of over 75 millimeters (mm)/hour frequently fall on small- and medium- sized rivers, including the Kanda and Shakujii rivers. Given land use restrictions, despite the need to expand urban drainage, it is impossible to widen the river channels. Therefore, the installation of retention ponds and underground storage facilities is often prioritized as the most technically and economically effective measure. Other priority measures include sewerage improvements underneath trunk lines. Given their geographic condition, neighborhoods in the Tama area also prioritize green infrastructure, an integral solution to flood risk; related efforts include conserving green spaces for infiltration and developing bioswales for temporary water retention. In addition to prioritizing specific types of measures, Tokyo prioritizes the locations of interventions by designating “special management watersheds and districts.” These priority areas are identified based on areas with historical flood events that caused significant damage to people and livelihoods. What tools and approaches are used for planning and prioritization? Risk assessments (discussed in Knowledge Note 1), cost-benefit analyses (CBAs), and engagement and consensus building with communities and stakeholders inform the planning and prioritization of flood risk management investments in Japanese cities. For example, in Tokyo, the metropolitan government conducts CBAs to inform the Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 14 sectoral allocation of flood risk management targets and responsibilities, as well as to compare options for flood risk management interventions within a site-specific investment project. When the TMG embarked on integrated urban flood risk management in the 1980s, a technical panel developed a report entitled “Visions for Comprehensive Flood Management in TMG (Report 61), 1986” (hereafter referred to as “Report 61”). This set a long-term citywide flood management goal of 100 mm/hour as well as an indicative allocation of targets and responsibilities between river and sewerage departments. To inform the allocations, a CBA was conducted comparing three different flood mitigation scenarios to achieve the long-term goal. These options were: (i) using conventional flood management measures such as widening river channels and expanding or bypassing sewerage pipes (river management); (ii) installing stormwater runoff management facilities such as retention ponds (sewerage management); and (iii) installing stormwater storage and infiltration facilities (watershed sewerage management). The flood management targets for the watershed and DRM departments were determined based on what was not addressed by the river and sewerage departments.14 Engagement and consensus building with communities and stakeholders are important steps in the planning and prioritization of flood risk management. In Japan, watershed committees discuss plans and priorities, and form agreements between the community members and the private and public stakeholders that are affected by proposed flood management plans and specific interventions. The committees often consist of relevant river and sewerage administrators, community members, and people in urban planning, housing, land property, farming, road departments, academia, and environmental and civil society organizations. TMG’s consensus-building process is described in table 4. How do cities decide between structural and nonstructural measures? Cities are increasingly aware that flood risks cannot be managed effectively unless the strengths of both structural and nonstructural measures are combined to achieve their citywide flood management goals. Japan has recognized the importance of this integrated approach since the 1980s, and especially since experiencing numerous mega disasters. The Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 highlighted the limits of relying on only structural measures,15 as great damage occurred even in areas with high embankments. Consequently, nonstructural measures have been implemented in tandem with structural measures during the reconstruction. To prevent such damage from recurring, an embankment would have to be 30 to 40 m high (equivalent to the height of a 10-story building), which would not be acceptable from a financial, environmental, or social standpoint. In the reconstruction following the earthquake, a plan to make a mega dike (large embankment) was abandoned at an early stage. Various discussions have taken place about the construction of the embankment, as well as the acceptable level of risk to the community. In the end, the region has adopted nonstructural measures, such as prohibiting residents from living in tsunami-prone areas, relocating houses to higher ground, building evacuation centers, developing evacuation plans, and basing town restoration plans on the premise of flooding (Ishiwatari 2016). Structural and nonstructural measures have their strengths and weaknesses, and cities must understand these to plan and prioritize such measures in an integrated manner. Structural measures, normally led by river and sewerage sectors, are often limited by geography, technical and political feasibility, construction time, and budget. In some cases, large structural investments can be modified only with difficulty, even as sticking with the original plan could in fact increase flood risk, given changes in the natural/hydrological or physical environment. On the other hand, nonstructural measures normally have much more limited flood mitigation benefits but can be adapted to a variety of risk contexts, and can respond to a changing natural or physical environment. Key nonstructural flood risk management tools and approaches considered by cities in Japan include the following: 14 Cost-benefit analyses of various public investments in Japan, including those relevant to urban floods (such as rivers, sewerage, coastal embankments, urban planning, etc.), are consolidated in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication Web Portal (in Japanese): http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/hyouka/seisaku_n/koukyou_jigyou.html. 15 During the unprecedented earthquake, although coastal villages were protected with embankments that were 10 to 15 meters (m) high and extended around 300 km of the coastline, severe damage was caused by a tsunami that reached a maximum water level height of up to 40 m. In many places the tsunami was higher than the height of the bank, and about 190 km of the embankment collapsed. However, the embankment weakened the strength of the tsunami, which allowed citizens more time to evacuate. Areas that had good early warning and evacuation systems in place did well, while in many others, lives were lost. The incident revealed the problems of overconfidence in structural measures. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 15 • Water and land use management is important in order to prepare for uncertainties such as the effects of climate change and consequent unexpected disasters. The first stage of water and land management is to protect important areas and facilities such as residential areas, roads, and power plants by river embankments. The second stage is to prohibit residents from living in vulnerable areas that cannot be protected by embankments. These areas can be used for facilities that can be shut down during a flood without negative consequences, such as sports facilities, parks, and parking lots. At the third stage, evacuation policies and approaches to empower communities for disaster prevention are planned (Ishiwatari 2016). It is important to consider flood risks in urban planning and development through building and zoning codes. Actual methods include urban planning, building codes, promoting awareness of flood risks, promoting relocation by providing risk information, and enhancing flood alert systems. In addition, there are cases where local governments establish land use policies combining road projects with efforts to improve the embankments protecting certain urban areas. Municipalities collaborate to conduct integrated projects for both flood control and land use.16 • Japan’s City Planning Act regulates land use, urban facilities, and urban development projects in Japan. Existing urban areas and areas where urbanization is preferentially and systematically planned within approximately 10 years are set as Urbanization Areas. Areas where urbanization should be restricted are designated as Urbanization Control Areas. According to Article 8.2 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications 2009) of the act, areas at risk of floods, tsunamis, and storm surges must not be included as priority areas for urban development over the 10-year city planning period. • Building Standard Law and Urban Planning Law and Ordinance. According to the Building Standard Law (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications 2018), local governments can designate areas as vulnerable to disasters such as floods, tsunamis, and storm surges. The ordinance also allows local governments to prohibit construction of residential buildings in vulnerable areas and to set other development restrictions for disaster prevention. In some cases, this is specifically to reduce stormwater runoff (as shown in cases 1 and 10 of Knowledge Note 3). The case of Shiga Prefecture’s land use regulation and water-resistant architecture (see section 3.2 of this Knowledge Note) is a representative example. Although these land use and architectural regulations may be difficult to apply in already developed areas, national efforts to do so are underway. For example, the MLIT established the Location Optimization Plan in August 2014 to foster the formation of compact and resilient cities by attracting development to areas with low flood risks through siting public facilities and amenities strategically (MLIT n.d.[c]). The plan excludes high-risk, flood-prone areas from public investments aimed to enhance livability, while focusing the implementation of flood management measures— including river and sewerage management facilities, stormwater detention and infiltration facilities, and public alert evacuation systems—in high-risk zones. • Disaster risk reduction and management. Promotion of residents’ awareness of flood risks through strengthening disaster risk reduction and management is also a key nonstructural measure. This is done through the public dissemination of flood risk information to enhance evacuation and early warning, as well as by encouraging residents to adopt voluntary flood prevention methods, such as using water-resistant building methods. Real estate transactions require the disclosure of flood risk information (see section 3.2 for Shiga Prefecture’s regulation) and local ordinances require that real estate agents be kept up to date on the latest flood risk information in areas such as Kyoto Prefecture. As part of the urban flood risk investment planning and prioritization process, many cities in Japan first define the scope and scale of structural flood management investments that cities can implement during the planning period. They then determine the types and levels of nonstructural measures that are necessary to complement the structural investments so as to achieve the city’s flood risk management goal, although increasingly, the consideration of structural and nonstructural investments is taking place in parallel. Considering the time required for investment design, consensus building, construction, and financing of structural measures, TMG’s Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management (Update), 2014, illustrates the city’s plan to achieve the long-term goal of managing 100 mm/hour 16 City development in Japan is governed under the City Planning Act. Comprehensive strategies for urban development in designated area are planned, implemented and monitored. Zones are classified as either Urbanization Areas (also called Urbanization Promotion Areas) or Urbanization Control Areas. Urbanization Areas are already urbanized or should be systematically urbanized with high priority within the ten years, under associated land use and building code regulations, etc., that promote development. In Urbanization Control Areas, urbanization is controlled and limited in principle, and therefore, very little public infrastructure investments are made in these zones. For more information, see: https://www.mlit. go.jp/common/000997836.pdf and https://jica-net-library.jica.go.jp/library/jn334/UrbanPlanningSystem_all.pdf. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 16 rainfall by a combination of structural and nonstructural measures over a 30-year period (see section 3.1). In addition, the city’s flood risk investment planning and prioritization process are complemented by other, related urban policies and plans. As part of their DRM and climate change adaptation strategies, Japanese cities are increasingly putting strong emphasis on nonstructural measures as the first line of defense to protect lives and livelihoods in the face of unexpected disasters. While they are relatively low cost and adaptable, the challenge of nonstructural measures, however, is the need for long-term and consistent engagement, awareness raising, and training that fits the needs of the specific social and environmental contexts of each community and stakeholder group. Experiences of the 2018 flood events in Japan reaffirmed the importance, as well as the challenges, of nonstructural flood management measures. In Mabi City, Okayama Prefecture, several lives were lost in an area where citizens were informed of the high flood risks. Most casualties were elderly citizens who were unable to evacuate in a timely manner, largely as a result of failure to receive flood warnings, lack of awareness and recognition of the risk levels, as well as limited means to safely move to shelters. This experience demonstrates that in order to save lives under unprecedented flood events, structural measures alone may be insufficient. Furthermore, to enhance nonstructural measure such as effective evacuation, significant efforts are required to not only communicate risk information but also to strengthen the capacity and knowledge of response and evacuation actions. Knowledge Note 1 provides further information about outreach, communication, and evacuation activities led by Japanese cities. Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Sharing How can cities build consensus and share responsibilities with various stakeholders by engaging them in the process of planning and prioritizing flood management investments? Through the planning and prioritization process, cities actively engage the national government, local community, and private firms in order to not only build consensus on the proposed flood management investments, but also to garner support in sharing responsibilities for the implementation steps to follow, such as design and construction, financing, and O&M. Table 5 illustrates how the roles of various stakeholders are diversifying in planning, prioritizing, and implementing flood management investments in Japan, based on different flood risk types. Cities in Japan rely on, and coordinate with, the national government to lead large-scale river and coastal structural measures against urban floods. Additionally, cities are supported by the national ministry, the MLIT, which provides guidance related to domestic laws, technical guidelines, expertise, and financial resources required for implementing structural measures for minor rivers, sewers, and drainage, as well as nonstructural measures, such as risk maps and early flood warning and evacuation systems. While being aware of unique regional contexts, the MLIT also plays a crucial role in ensuring the consistency of flood management measures across various local governments as it monitors their effectiveness and promotes an integrated approach. The national government supports local governments, which often have limited capacity and resources to plan, prioritize, and implement flood management investments independently. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management views were integrated toward the nalization of the goals. Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 17 Table 5: Major Stakeholders and Role Sharing, by Type of Flood Risk Type of Examples of Flood Key Stakeholders Engaged by Local Governments in Investment Planning and Flood Risk Management Measures Prioritization River improvement MLIT ( nancing and standards); (levees) Local community (consensus building) River ood Local community (consensus building, design, O&M); Reservoirs / parks Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities ) Sewerage system MLIT ( nancing and standards); improvement MLIT (standards); Underground cisterns Public schools (construction of facilities, O&M); Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities) Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities); Surface Rainwater harvesting Community and households (consensus building, design, construction, nancing, water systems O&M of facilities) ood Water retention / MLIT (standards); detention ponds Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities) Local community and households (consensus building, design, construction , Green infrastructure nancing, O&M of facilities); Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities) Storm MLIT ( nancing and standards); Sea walls surge ood Private rms (implementation of codes, nancing, including public-private partnership) Early warning and MLIT (standards); evacuation Local community (consensus building, awareness, implementation) Combined MLIT (standards); / all ood Land use plans, zoning Local community and households (consensus building and implementation); and building codes Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities) Source: Authors’ compilation. design, construction 1986 2007 2012 2014 Today Private firms and communities are making greater investments in flood management to meet the increasing and diversifying risks of urban floods. While flood risks in urban areas continue to increase beyond a level that the public sector alone can manage, private firms and residents face Revisionsignificant economic and social costs (2014) (enhancing measures) due to increasing risks of inundation. With increasing costs facing also the private sector, new methods of actively engaging private firms and communityBasic emerging, are pollicy with new stakeholders playing roles in the design, (2007) Basic Policy implementation, (speci ing goals financing, and O&M of flood management and investments. Individual households and communities Overall Plans own flood areas) also play a significant role in implementing their prioritizing management measures, such as by installing stormwater storage tanks. Such a bottom-up approach can help build consensus among residents and communities and raise public awareness of flood risk management. Innovative ways of implementing, operating, and maintaining urban Basic amework (goal setting and responsibility 61 Report measures are further detailed in Knowledge Notes 3 and 4. flood risk management sharing between sectors) Policy for improving Plans by Sectors River Existing plan small-to-mid-size rivers Sewer Management Existing plan plan 2016 Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management A Vision for Comprehensive Flood Management in TMG: Report 61 to the Governor of Tokyo (1986) Flood Management Goals & Targets Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 18 4. Case Studies This section offers three case studies of how IUFRM planning and prioritization are implemented by local governments in Japan. Key features and lessons learned are outlined below. The case of TMG involves a highly concentrated population, set of assets, and economic activity. TMG’s IUFRM approach shows how ambitious cityside flood risk management goals are set, together with sectoral targets and both structural and nonstructural measures, through a coordinated approach. Shiga Prefecture is an example of a midsized city with a moderately concentrated population, set of assets, and economic activity. Its IUFRM approach highlights progressive land use planning and building codes. Setagaya Ward,17 the largest local government in TMG by population, is a residential and commercial area that has relatively abundant green space but is facing increasing urban flood risks due to development pressures. Setagaya’s IUFRM approach is characterized by an active, bottom-up community-led approach, with wide application of green infrastructure solutions promoted not only as flood management measures but also as furthering urban and community development and environmental conservation. 4.1 Case of Tokyo Metropolitan Government Context Importance of IUFRM in TMG While geographical differences exist across its subdivisions, the TMG area overall is highly exposed to many devastating floods from heavy rain. Tokyo can be divided into: (i) the eastern central ward areas, and (ii) the western Tama area. Around 90 percent of the land in the eastern wards has been urbanized, compared with between 30 and 80 percent in Tama, where land is primarily used for agriculture and forestry. Due to rapid urbanization, agricultural and forestry areas are disappearing rapidly throughout the city, especially in the eastern ward areas. As a result, stormwater in the city does not infiltrate into the ground; instead it flows into rivers and sewerage systems, thereby leading to frequent floods from overflow caused by concentrated heavy rains. Tokyo has been increasingly experiencing heavy rains of over 50 mm/hour, and this recent trend is expected to continue due to climate change and the urban heat island phenomenon. Heavy rains are unevenly concentrated in the western parts of the central ward area and the Tama area. Especially, heavy rains of over 75 mm/hour frequently occur along small- and medium-sized rivers, including the Kanda and Shakujii rivers. Since the mid-1980s, small- and medium-sized rivers and sewerage systems have been improved (often widened) to be able to manage 50 mm/ hour of rainfall, resulting in a significant decrease in flood damage. Since these changes, there have been no cases of floods damaging more than 10,000 buildings; however, once every few years, there are still floods that affect over 6,000 buildings and are a serious concern to the residents and businesses of TMG. In September 2005, the western wards of the city experienced heavy rains of 100 mm/hour. Eight rivers flooded, including the Kanda and Shakujii rivers, and 5,827 buildings were damaged. Other recent incidences of urban flooding in Tokyo include: damage to approximately 300 buildings in Machida City in August 2008; to about 800 buildings in the Itabashi and Kita wards in July 2010; and to about 500 buildings in the Setagaya and Meguro 17 Tokyo is a regional government encompassing 23 special wards, 26 cities, 5 towns, and 8 villages. However, reflecting the dense population, urban contiguity, and other realities of the 23 special ward area, a unique administrative system exists between the metropolitan government and the wards, which differs from the typical relationship between prefectures and municipalities. This system balances the need to maintain unified administration and control across the whole of the ward area and the need to have the local ward governments, which are nearer to the residents, handle everyday affairs. Specifically, in the 23 wards, the metropolitan government takes on some of the administrative responsibilities of a “city,” such as water supply and sewerage services, and firefighting, to ensure the provision of uniform, efficient services, while the wards have the autonomy to independently handle affairs close to the lives of the residents such as welfare, education, and housing (TMG n.d.). Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 19 Type of Examples of Flood Key Stakeholders Engaged by Local Governments in Investment Planning and Flood Risk Management wards in July 2013. Measures Prioritization River improvement MLIT ( nancing and standards); (levees) Local community (consensus building) TheRiver ood economic and social impacts of inundation from a large-scale flood are immense; such a flood potential Local community (consensus building, design, O&M); could disrupt keyReservoirs / parks and impair economic, social, and political functions at a citywide, national, and infrastructure Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities ) potentially global scale (MLIT Sewerage system2017). For example, large-scale floods in Tokyo could damage or delay transportation MLIT ( nancing and standards); infrastructure, leading to difficulties for commuters, as well as disruption to lifeline utilities (such as water, gas, improvement power, and communication infrastructure), MLITwhich could have a significant knock-on effect on business operations (standards); and homes. Recent studies (Japan Underground Society cisterns of Civil Public Engineering schools 2018a) (construction have estimated of facilities, O&M); that total damages to assets and economic activities from a large-scalePrivate rms flood18 in (design, Tokyo construction, could add up to an nancing, estimatedO&M of facilities) ¥100 trillion (approximately 19 $909 billion ), and in Tokyo’s ArakawaPrivate alone districtrms could (design, be over ¥60 construction, trillionO&M nancing, ($545 billion), affecting 1.26 of facilities); Surface Rainwater harvesting million people (Japan Community Society of Civil Engineers and households 2018b). Therefore, (consensus building, there is a strong design, and economic construction, nancing, social case to be water systems made for TMG to advance its capacity to O&M of facilities) manage floods. ood MLIT (standards); Water retention / Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities) detention ponds In the light of this, TMG has been pioneering efforts to integrate flood risk management measures into its urban Local community and households (consensus building, design, construction , development strategy. These efforts include Green infrastructure O&M coordination (i) close nancing, of facilities); and alignment with both national economic development policies and the city’s urban development Private rms (design, policies; and (ii) construction, engagement nancing, of various sectors and O&M of facilities) stakeholders Storm to facilitate a comprehensive approach to the planning MLIT ( nancing and standards); and prioritizing of flood management Sea walls investments. surge ood Private rms (implementation of codes, nancing, including public-private partnership) Early warning and MLIT (standards); Evolution Combined Planning in TMG Local community (consensus building, awareness, implementation) evacuation of IUFRM MLIT (standards); / all ood Land use plans, zoning Local community and households (consensus building and implementation); TMG initiated itsandIUFRM codesin 1986, and these have since evolved in stages, as illustrated in figure 3 and efforts building Private rms (design, construction, nancing, O&M of facilities) detailed below. Figure 3: Timeline of Plans for Managing the Risk of Heavy Rain design, in Tokyo construction 1986 2007 2012 2014 Today Revision (2014) (enhancing measures) Basic pollicy (2007) Basic Policy (speci ing goals and Overall Plans prioritizing areas) Basic amework (goal setting and responsibility 61 Report sharing between sectors) Policy for improving Plans by Sectors River Existing plan small-to-mid-size rivers Sewer Management Existing plan plan 2016 Source: Authors’ compilation based on interviews with TMG authorities (Furuki 2018). 18 A 1-in-1,000-year river flood. 19 This and the figure that follows are based on an exchange rate of ¥110 = $1 (2018 average). A Vision for Comprehensive Flood Management in TMG: Report 61 to the Governor of Tokyo (1986) Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Flood Management Goals & Targets mm/hr Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 20 Visions for Comprehensive Flood Management in TMG (1986) In the 1980s, TMG was experiencing frequent floods, exacerbated by urbanization. The national government had recently launched a general watershed management policy. TMG started discussions on flood damage mitigation in 1983 and compiled the results in the “Visions for Comprehensive Flood Management in TMG: Report 61 to the Governor of Tokyo,” published in July 1986. This report set TMG’s citywide flood management target at 100 mm/hour, among other short-, medium-, and long-term goals; set general sectoral role-sharing targets to achieve this citywide goal between river, sewerage, watershed, and urban planning and development sectors; detailed the watershed management measures that the city would take; and set the general urban flood (or heavy rain) management planning and investment framework for the city. The report also established four stages of the river and sewerage management planning process: (i) reviewing an existing plan, (ii) drafting a tentative plan, (iii) developing a long-term plan, and (iv) establishing a basic timeline/phasing plan. Policy for Managing Heavy Rains in Tokyo (2007) In August 2007, TMG redefined heavy rain measures by releasing the Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management. The policy adopted the citywide flood management goals and sectoral role sharing targets of Report 61. Through this process, nonstructural measures were integrated as critical measures for urban flood risk management, as the implementation of the planned structural measures were facing delays due to difficulties in land acquisition and time-consuming coordination. The policy set a phased timeline of 10 years and a long-term outlook of 30 years, specifying priority areas (mainly river watersheds, sewerage watersheds, and underground facilities). Guidance and Directions for Small and Medium Rivers in Tokyo (2012) In response to a flood caused by heavy rains in 2008, TMG released the “Guidance and Directions for Small and Medium River Improvements in Tokyo” in November 2012. The report incorporates findings presented by an expert committee concerning “the state of future maintenance in small and medium rivers in Tokyo.” The report pointed out the urgent need to consider local rainfall characteristics when enhancing the flood management goals for Tokyo’s small- and medium-sized rivers. Based on this guidance, the methodology for flood management in Tokyo was updated, by setting individual targets based on observed historical rainfall. Tokyo Sewerage Management Plan (2013, 2016) In 1994, the sewerage system covered 100 percent of the population (9 million in 2013) in the central ward areas of TMG, and 99 percent of the population (4.16 million in 2013) in the Tama area (Bureau of Sewerage, TMG 2014). Tokyo’s sewerage system comprised approximately 16,000 km of sewer pipes, 20 wastewater treatment plants, and 86 pumping stations as of 2016, when the Tokyo Sewerage Management Plan was prepared. Despite this extensive investment and coverage, new operation and management methodologies, including asset management, are needed to maintain the rapidly aging sewerage facilities so that they can effectively manage continued urban development and increasing disaster risks due to climate changes. The 2016 management plan is the city’s latest five-year basic policy to enhance sewerage system management and address issues such as the renewal of sewerage pipes and facilities and inundation mitigation. Updated Policy for Heavy Rain Management (June 2014) In response to the increasing frequency of extreme weather events and concentrated heavy rain, TMG updated the Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management in 2014 to further strengthen the city’s urban flood risk management capacity through promoting role sharing between public and private sectors.20 The plan was updated based on consultations and engagement of various stakeholders including citizens, academia, the private sector, and various city departments. The process was coordinated by a special interagency committee on heavy rain led by representatives from TMG’s Bureau of Urban Development (urban development and watershed measures), Bureau of Construction (river administration), and Bureau of Sewerage (sewerage administration). 20 The updated policy encouraged the participation of the private sector and community members to implement flood management investments in urban areas by incentivizing the installation of rainwater harvesting and detention facilities in private commercial and housing development projects as well as enhancing the rainwater infiltration capacities of green spaces. Large-scale underground shopping centers and metro companies, in collaboration with the public sector, were to enhance their flood management and emergency preparedness and response plans. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Revision (2014) (enhancing measures) Basic pollicy (2007) Basic2: Knowledge Note Planning and Prioritizing Urban Policy Flood (speci Risk Management ing goals and Investments 21 Overall Plans prioritizing areas) It further elaborates long-term (approximately 30-year) targets by adopting area-specific targets based on rainfall probability (once in 20 years). It considers 61 Report local Basic amework rainfall (goal characteristics, setting utilizing microclimate and geographical and responsibility sharing between sectors) information, especially in the central ward area and Tama area of TMG. It also designates priority areas and elaborates on the measures to be implemented in these areas based on the frequency and severity of historical flood damages—mainly river watersheds, sewerage watersheds, and underground facilities. It enhances flood in targeted urban Existing preparednessRiver centers such as large-scale underground shopping malls. It details short- to Policy for improving Plans by Sectors plan small-to-mid-size rivers medium-term investment priorities, including plans for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympic Games as well as until 2024 (the 10-year plan). Management Setting Step 1: GoalSewer Existing plan plan 2016 TMG’s IUFRM goals have evolved over time since their initial establishment in 1984. The goal-setting process is revisited every 10 to 20 years and is expected to continue evolving to adapt to the urban development context as well as to changing climate and disaster risks. While the citywide flood management goal for TMG remains 100 mm/hour, in Report 61 this overall goal was revisited and refined through efforts to accelerate and actualize progress toward it by setting short-, medium- (10- year), and long-term (30-year) goals. Table 6 lists the goals and targets of TMG’s three key policy frameworks. Table 6: Evolution of Tokyo’s Flood Management Goals A Vision for Comprehensive Flood Management in TMG: Report 61 to the Governor of Tokyo (1986) Flood Management Goals & Targets mm/hr • City-wide ood management target: set at 100 Watershed 100mm/hour, based on rainfall likely to 90 measures occur once in a few hundred years 75 • Combined ood management target for Level of rainfall river and sewerage improvement: to Stormwater e ectively manage (without storage facilities 50 over ow / ood) 50mm/hour rainfall • Underground rivers, storage reservoirs, A: Tentative target and under ground facilities: to collectively 25 River and sewerage B: Fixed target handle rainfall of 40mm/hour improvement C:Long-term target • Watershed measures: to manage rainfall of D: Basic policy target 10mm/hour Level of 1986 A B C D 50mm/hour 50mm/hour 75mm/hour 100mm/hour Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management (2007) Flood Management Goals & Targets 10-year target (in priority area): Long-term (approximately 30 years) (entire TMG): • Preventing above- oor inundation by promot- • Preventing any oods from rainfall up to 60mm/hour ing installation of water reservoirs and sewer • Preventing above- oor inundation from rainfall up to and river over ow facilities 75 mm/hour by promoting installation of water reser- • Saving lives under historical maximum level of voirs and sewer and river over ow facilities and water rainfall through enhancing evacuation retention facilities within housing and urban develop- ment • Saving lives under historical maximum level of rainfall through enhancing evacuation Plan : Updated Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management (June 2014) Flood Management Goals & Targets June 2014 Long-term (approximately 30 years) (entire TMG): • Preventing above- oor inundation from rainfall events with up to 1-in-20-year probability (75mm/hour in central ward area and 65 mm/hour in Tama area) • Preventing any inundation throughout TMG from 60mm/ hour rainfall • No casualty at any rainfall level, including those in excess of historical maximum target levels Sources: Authors’ compilation based on TMG (1986, 2014). Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management • No casualty at any rainfall level, including those in excess of historical maximum target levels Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 22 Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization Planning Under the citywide flood management goal, TMG integrates both structural and nonstructural measures for flood risk management to be implemented by various sectoral departments and stakeholders. The sectoral allocation was determined by various factors, including available land, time, technology, and finance through a CBA, which was conducted when determining the sectoral allocation under Report 61. Each sectoral department then reviews and determines various tools and approaches to fulfill its sectoral flood management targets. Figure 4 describes the sectoral allocation of flood management targets within the Updated Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management (2014). Figure 4: Heavy Rain Management Goals and Sectoral Allocation in Tokyo mm/hr Strengthened evacuation Housing and 75 measures town planning Level of rainfall (65) River and sewerage improvement (detention facilities) River and sewerage improvement (drainage facilities) Watershed measures Level of 2014 30 years later Source: Modified based on the Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management (updated June 2014). Watershed measures (stormwater runo control) Prioritization Inundation damage prevention River and sewerage improvements In TMG, prioritization of flood management measures takes place within, and not between, sectors. To meet the Rain Event shared citywide Inundation flood above management ground goals, sectoral targets oor prevention are Housing anddetermined based on various factors (as described community development above). Within each sector, various options for flood risk management are reviewed and prioritized. The Updated Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management includes sector-specific structural and nonstructural measures (included in figure 5). Saving lives Evacuation ormwater storage facilities at public facilities (roads, schools) Coordination with wards Installation of in ltration facilities and green spaces in development projects Rainwater storage facilities at private facilities (buildings, houses) Promotion of in ltration facilities in private residences Green space preservation Parks and green spaces River improvements Separate system for rainwater and wastewater Watershed measures’ improvement Sewerage improvement Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Pumping stations’ improvement (65) Private River and Level of rain facilities Enhancement of watershed management in sewerage private roads improvement (detention facilities) River and sewerage Knowledge Note 2: Planning and ofUrban Prioritizing Enhancement Flood watershed Risk Management management improvement in Investments (drainage facilities) 23 existing houses Watershed measures Level of 2014 30 years later Figure 5: Types of Heavy Rain Measures Identified in the Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management Promotion of rainwater utilization facilities Promotion of (updated 2014) rainwater use Promotion of rainwater tanks Watershed measures (stormwater runo control) Inundation damage prevention Promotion of green infrastructure River and sewerage improvements of advance above Heavy Rain Event PromotionInundation on ooding noticeground oor prevention Housing and community development Promotion of measures for housing and Promotion of ood-resilient housing development urban Saving lives Evacuation development Promotion of mechanisms for community and town development Enhancement Promotion of advance notice on ooding TMG also sets priority intervention areas based on various considerations regarding exposure and vulnerability to of evacuation measures flood risks,Promotion such as historical data on of ood-resilient past flood housing damage, forecasts of future damage, the population and assets in development the watershed, maintenance status of rivers and sewerage systems, impact of flood management measures, and impact of floods on the region (figure 6). The identification of these areas also depends on sectoral approaches. In Main body case of the Stormwater sewerage storage sector, facilities based at public on the characteristics facilities (roads, schools) of flood damage and rainfall, Coordination the areas that suffer from with wards substantial flood damage are designated as “watersheds and districts targeted for intensified measures.” Figure Cooperation 7 shows the combined prioritized areas for heavy rain measures designated by the river sector and by the sewerage Installation of in ltration facilities and green sector. In Tokyo, surface water floods are caused by short-term heavy rain. spaces inGenerally, development the prioritized areas show projects similar rainfall Rainwater trends storage andat facilities are concentrated private in regions facilities (buildings, that have frequently experienced rainfall of over 50 mm/ houses) hour in the past. Promotion of in ltration facilities in private residences Figure Green 6: Criteria space for Designating Priority Areas for Flood preservation ParksRisk and Management green spaces in Tokyo Category Decision criteria River improvements • Level of hazards Hazard A • History of ood damages Separate system for rainwater and wastewater • Rainfall conditions (heavy rain occurrence) Small Large Watershed measures’ improvement characteristics • LocalSewerage of watersheds improvement Exposure B B’ (population, assets, critical facilities) Small Large Pumping stations’ improvement • River and sewerage improvement status Vulnerability C C’ • Local disaster prevention capacity Low Deregulation High of sewerage water discharge to rivers • Impacts on community and society Impact D D’ • Consideration of environment Detention pond Small Large Stormwater storage improvement Priority Low Regulatory pond High Detention pond Source: Authors’ compilation. Information dissemination (inundation risk and heavy rain measures) Regulatory pond Inundation measures for underground space Identi cation of possible inundation areas and creation/dissemination of hazard maps Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Underground space inundation measures, Shakujii River guideline dissemination Figure 5, continued from previous page 24 Stormwater storage facilities at public facilities (roads, schools) Coordination with wards Installation of in ltration facilities and green spaces in development projects Rainwater storage facilities at private facilities (buildings, houses) Promotion of in ltration facilities in private residences Green space preservation Parks and green spaces River improvements Separate system for rainwater and wastewater Watershed measures’ improvement Sewerage improvement Pumping stations’ improvement Deregulation of sewerage water discharge to rivers Detention pond Stormwater storage improvement Regulatory pond Detention pond Information dissemination (inundation risk and heavy rain measures) Regulatory pond Inundation measures for underground space Identi cation of possible inundation areas and creation/dissemination of hazard maps Underground space inundation measures, guideline dissemination Promotion of buildings with elevated ground oors Measures for underground inundation in facilities Strengthening rainwater observation system Strengthening rainwater and water level measurement Dissemination (rainfalls, water level measurements) "Pushing" out information to the public Standards setting for issuance of evacuation warnings and instructions Drills on paper and physical exercises for disaster preparedness Evacuation plan improvement Evacuation to the upper oors of a building Evacuation from underground space Source: Modified based on information from TMG (2014). Stakeholder Role Responsibilities • Installation and maintenance of stormwater storage facility and underground Prefectural government Main body in ltration facility Impact D D’ • Consideration of environment Small Large Priority Low High Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 25 Figure 7: Watersheds and Districts Prioritized for Intensified Heavy Rain Measures in Tokyo, 2014 Shakujii River Kanda River Nogawa River Meguro River Sakai River Prioritized areas for heavy rain measures by the river sector 5km Prioritized areas for heavy rain measures by the sewerage sector Source: Modified based on information from TMG (2014). Note: km = kilometer. In Tokyo, risk assessments and damage estimations simulate simultaneous river and surface water floods. Priority areas are set based on the outcome of the simulation and a CBA. Efforts in the prioritized watersheds and districts are then managed through a joint river and sewerage committee (Furuki 2018). Although the river and sewerage systems are managed by different public entities in Tokyo, an integrated approach—using a joint simulation and a joint selection of prioritized areas—makes efforts toward achieving the common goal of reducing urban flood risks and damages more efficient and effective. Public: 119,000 m3 Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Remaining gap Sharing 12% 641,000 m3 As flood management goals have 68% evolved over time to be more specific Private: to local contexts, the process of goal 195,000 setting in TMG has also progressed to engage various stakeholders. While revisingm3 the Basic Policy for Heavy Rain 20% Management in 2014, consultations took place with various departments, wards, academia, river and sewerage facility operators, private sector actors, and citizens. For example, the need to set more ambitious targets based on not only past rainfall patterns but future rainfall projections in the face of climate change was one point of feedback received from the general public. The TMG Heavy Rain Management Committee—comprised of university professors, lawyers, and representatives from TMG’s urban planning, construction (in charge of rivers), and sewerage departments—reviewed, responded to, and integrated these feedback points into goal-setting processes wherever possible (TMG 2014). Along with building consensus to develop a common citywide goal for flood risk management, TMG has also been developing and implementing various programs that designate responsibility for flood management across a range of sectors and stakeholders. These efforts include the development of guidance and policies by river and sewerage Setagaya Ward Basic Strategy & Action Plan Related Legal and Policy Frameworks Urban Development Policy National: Comprehensive Flood Risk Management Plans Learning Heavy from Rain Japan’s Basic Experience Policy & Action in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Plan Tokyo Metropolitan Government: Basic Policy Other Individual Plans & Policies for Heavy Rain Management & Action Plans Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 26 departments that are promoting self-help efforts and mutual assistance among citizens, providing financial incentives and grants, supporting new technology development, and gathering and sharing risk information to promote effective evacuation. Additionally, TMG has developed and implemented various measures that foster intersectoral consensus building. Cooperation between the river and sewerage departments increased significantly, especially after the 2005 heavy rain of over 100 mm/hour in the Suginami and Nakano wards, which highlighted the need for cooperation to manage extreme heavy rain events. These intersectoral consensus-building mechanisms include: (i) having joint meetings regularly between the river and sewerage sectors to share updates and methodologies for risk assessment and planning; (ii) conducting flood risk modeling and simulations jointly for rivers and sewerage sectors, and integrating risks from both river and surface water floods; and (iii) periodic personnel exchange and secondment arrangements between river and sewerage departments. Citizens also participate not only in the planning process but also in sharing the responsibility for mitigating urban flood risks. The roles of citizens and communities as a whole are also increasing amid growing awareness about the importance of nonstructural measures for urban flood risk management, such as individual- and household-level preparedness and evacuation. (Various ways in which citizens design, implement, monitor, and maintain various flood management investments are described in Knowledge Notes 3 and 4.) Future Challenges In light of Tokyo’s continued urban development, coupled with increasing and changing flood risks, along with a rapidly aging flood management infrastructure, TMG will need to revisit its flood management plans and priorities approximately every 10–20 years and continue to adapt to the new urban flood risk management challenges the city faces. Current and future challenges that Tokyo faces in planning and prioritization are: (i) further analyzing the risks and setting targets for flood risk management at the watershed level; (ii) enhancing the stakeholder engagement and coordination mechanisms to scale planning and implementation of flood management measures; (iii) communicating and raising awareness regarding flood risks, preparedness, and evacuation with citizens; (iv) monitoring progress against plans and targets on a continuous basis; and (v) utilizing the latest technologies (risk models, etc.) to enhance flood risk planning. To address these challenges, partnerships and coordination with additional departments and stakeholders will be important. Related efforts might include integrating flood management perspectives within the city’s plans, and acting to support environmental sustainability, biodiversity management, parks and recreation, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Furthermore, scaling and diversifying the methods and areas for engaging new stakeholders—particularly citizens, communities, and the private sector—is critical, as the budget and human resources for implementation and O&M of structural measures for flood management will continue to increase. Therefore, Tokyo, like other local governments in Japan, is exploring new ways to involve not only the public sector but also the private sector and citizens. 4.2 Case of Shiga Prefecture Context Importance of IUFRM in Shiga Prefecture Shiga Prefecture has experienced serious flood damages over the last decade due to its geographical and topographical characteristics and abundant water resources, coupled with climate change and uncontrolled urban development. Shiga is renowned for its rich water resources, including Lake Biwa, the largest freshwater lake in Japan. Nearly 120 rivers (most of them less than 50 km in length) flow into the lake, each of which has tributaries and streams that cover the entire prefecture. Plains stretch out around the lake, and are surrounded by watersheds. The narrow and steep terrain characteristics and the large volume of sediment that flows into the rivers and raises the river beds further increases the risks of floods and droughts. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 27 Despite its vulnerability to water-related disasters, urban planning and development in Shiga Prefecture historically took place without much consideration of flood risks. As a result, forested areas and rice paddies with water retention functions, as well as natural levees and vegetated areas for infiltration, were degraded or lost due to urban development pressures. With climate change, concentrated heavy rain as well as powerful typhoons threaten to increase the risk of floods in Shiga’s urban areas. These combined effects of geography, urban development, and climate change have resulted in significant flood damages over the past decade in Shiga Prefecture. For example, in 2008, Nagahama City was affected by concentrated heavy rain of more than 84 mm/hour, which inundated more than 11 households and commercial buildings above floor level, and 203 buildings below floor level (Shiga Prefecture 2012a). In 2013, Typhoon Man-yi, with a maximum hourly rainfall of 78 mm, caused one death, nine injuries, 49 above-floor and 497 below-floor level inundations, and damage to more than 1,500 hectares of agricultural land from both river and surface water floods (Shiga Prefecture 2014b, 2012a). In light of this situation, in 2012 Shiga Prefecture developed the Basic Policy for Watershed Flood Management and in 2014 established an Ordinance on Promotion of Watershed Flood Management in Shiga Prefecture (Shiga Prefecture 2015) as an effort to mitigate urban flood risks. These enhanced the understanding and integration of flood risk management in the urban planning and development process. Step 1: Goal Setting The policy and ordinance set forth Shiga Prefecture’s flood management goals and approaches. These include targets for both structural and nonstructural measures to manage flood risk. Related responsibilities are shared among all stakeholders—including individual households (self-help), communities (mutual assistance), and the government (public assistance). Two key flood management goals are to:21 • 1) Save lives—prevent inundation of more than 3 meters above floor level, and damages to houses from a 1- • in-200-year rainfall level • 2) Avoid damages that disrupt the quick recovery and continuation of livelihoods—prevent above-floor-level • inundation from a 1-in-10-year rainfall level. Shiga Prefecture’s four key flood management approaches have the following objectives: • 1) Drain: Use river channel flood control measures and flood control facilities such as dams to safely drain • flood water down rivers and sewerage systems. • 2) Store: Implement watershed storage measures to mitigate stormwater runoff. Relevant watershed resources • include retention ponds, ground and soil in forests, paddy fields, and reservoirs. • 3) Contain: Reduce overflow by containing water inside the watershed. Measures to mitigate damage in • floodplains include the use of circle levees, double levees, open levees, forests, land use regulations, and • flood-resistant construction. • 4) Prepare: Enhance disaster preparedness through awareness raising efforts, disaster prevention drills, • dissemination of disaster information, early warning systems, and risk assessments; and strengthen • disaster responses such as evacuation and flood control activities. For efforts to drain water, numerical targets are set for river and sewerage management interventions at the national minimum level. These consist of: • River management and improvement interventions that seek to prepare relatively large rivers (with watershed areas larger than 50 km 2) for rainfall equivalent to the largest historical flood since World War II (an approximately 1-in-30-year rainfall level). • River management and improvement interventions that seek to prepare relatively small rivers (with watershed areas less than 50 km2) for a 1-in-10-year rainfall level (around 50 mm/hour). 21 A once in 10-year rainfall level is equivalent to approximately 50 millimeters [mm]/hour, a 1-in-100-year rainfall is approximately 109 mm/hour, and a 1-in-200-year is approximately 131 mm/hour (Shiga Prefecture 2018a). Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management guideline dissemination Promotion of buildings with elevated ground oors Measures for underground inundation in facilities Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 28 Strengthening rainwater observation system • Sewerage management and improvement interventions that seek to prepare urban sewerage systems for a 1-in -5 to 10-year rainfall level (around 50 mm/hour). Strengthening rainwater and water level measurement Dissemination (rainfalls, water level measurements) Additionally, through efforts to store, contain, and prepare, Shiga Prefecture aims to achieve the two goals of andout "Pushing" avoiding loss of lives (top priority) and damages that disrupt quick recovery tolivelihoods informationof continuation the public in the face of any kind of rainfall (defined as a 1-in-200-year rainfall level) through watershed-wide interventions. Standards setting for issuance of evacuation Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization warnings and instructions Planning Drills on paper and physical exercises for disaster preparedness Watershed flood management measures in Shiga Prefecture are comprised of draining, storing, containing, and preparing. In alignment with the two key goals noted earlier, clear roles and responsibilities are specified for each Evacuation plan improvement Evacuation to the upper oors of a building stakeholder to promote flood management measures (table 7). Evacuation from underground space Table 7: Sharing Responsibility for the Installation and Maintenance of Stormwater Storage and Infiltration Facilities Stakeholder Role Responsibilities • Installation and maintenance of stormwater storage facility and underground Prefectural government Main body in ltration facility • Supervision of stormwater drainage in development areas of Class A rivers • Installation and maintenance of stormwater storage facility and underground Main body in ltration facility City and municipal government • Supervision of stormwater drainage in development areas of Class B rivers Support • General support for household -level ood control measures • Installation and maintenance of stormwater storage facilities and underground Residents Main body in ltration facilities in residential houses • Installation and maintenance of stormwater storage facilities and underground Private operators Main body in ltration facilities in commercial buildings Source: Authors’ compilation. A: Urban Planning Law (if appropriate measures are implemented, the restriction will be li ed) For watershed flood management in Shiga Prefecture, the river, sewerage, and watershed sectors cooperate and Probability of occurrence per year 1/2 (0.500) share responsibilities related to urban flood management Higher Risk the common goal of reducing flood risks and under B: Building Standard Law damages 1/10in (0.100) A cities. Additionally, each stakeholder from the public, private, industrial andmeasures (if appropriate sectors cooperates, are implemented, the restriction will be li ed) coordinates, and 1/10 (0.033) shares responsibilities to ensure an integrated approach. 1/10 (0.020) a: No damage Prioritization 1/10 (0.010) b: Inundation under ground oor level B c: Inundation above ground oor level 1/200 (0.005) Watershed-level measures in Shiga Prefecture are not prioritized and sewerage across d: Houses completely as sectors, are river inundated ... maintenance efforts, butLower Risk are instead e: Houses swept away prioritized within each sector. Shiga Prefecture manages 506 rivers, which are ranked from Class A to D based on Level ofthe level damages of need depth, (inundation for emergency uid force) improvement. Among them, 85 rivers are Class A, a factors and 42 rivers are Class B. The b consideredc d to prioritize in order e and determine flood management measures h<0.1m 0.13.0m u2h>2.5m3/s2 include: the level of risk (degree of damage); characteristics of rivers (watershed size, presence of a raised bed, embankment, or excavation); level of emergency risk (history of flood damage, assessment of flood risks in the Risk = (Probability of occurrence) X (Level of damage) area); risk to human life (based on an assessment of the terrain and of the proximity and condition of residences); and impact on assets (based on an assessment of potential damage and reconstruction). The factors considered when deciding the efficiency of measures include their impact on local businesses and on regional development. Last, enabling environments needed for IUFRM investment are also considered; these include local demand for flood management assistance and statements of intent to cooperate in flood risk management investments and activities. Vision: A safe and secure town om ood damages Three basic guiding principles Urban development that considers heavy rainfall Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Urban development that retains stormwater Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 29 Additionally, Shiga Prefecture prioritizes several nonstructural measures for flood risk management. These include: (i) Neighborhood safety assessments to inform and encourage citizens’ flood preparedness activities Collaboration between the government and local community is crucial to raise awareness of flood risk management, implement structural and nonstructural measures, and encourage the participation of residents. Shiga Prefecture has investigated the safety of different geographic areas in the local watershed and identified high-risk areas based on citizens’ lifestyles. To estimate what is called the “neighborhood safety level,” flood risk is assessed not only along rivers but also in waterways and nearby facilities. The maximum flood depth is determined using an inundation simulation at the maximum possible flood scale (1-in-1,000-year flood). Through its website, the prefecture provides flood risk information through neighborhood safety maps for each municipality (see Knowledge Note 1 for details). (ii) Land use planning and requirements for flood-resilient construction in high-risk areas Shiga Prefecture’s earlier urban development and land use plans did not take flood risk into consideration since quantitative assessments were not available at the time. Therefore, the prefecture has since revised land use regulations and requirements for construction based on the identification of high-risk areas from risk assessment results. These regulations ensure that higher standards of flood risk management measures are implemented in high-flood-risk areas. Article 39 of the Building Standard Law (Shiga Prefecture 2015; MLIT 2007) requires that: • Areas where the inundation of houses is expected are regulated as high-flood-risk areas. • The construction of public facilities such as hospitals, schools, government agencies, residential buildings, and so on, is essentially prohibited within high-flood-risk areas. • Construction in high-risk areas is allowed only if safety measures for residents are implemented. Areas within Shiga Prefecture are assigned to two flood risk categories (Shiga Prefecture 2015) (figure 8): • In Area A, flooding above the ground-floor level frequently occurs and “urban development is limited to avoid critical damage to assets and increased burden of recovery” (Shiga Prefecture 2015). If there are a number of floods above the ground-floor level, it will lead to critical damage of assets and make reconstruction difficult. In Shiga Prefecture, river and sewerage improvements have successfully coped with floods caused by a 1-in-10- year rainfall (50 mm/hour) or more. • In Area B, construction is restricted to avoid damage and loss of life. The prefecture has prioritized the protection of the lives of its citizens and actively works toward the prevention of all flood damage. Based on the flood strength of a 1-in-200-year probability and the design scale of the Yodo River, the prefecture designates areas with life-threatening risks of inundation and loss of houses as “districts with construction regulations,” where the prefectural government sets certain criteria for approval related to construction. Buildings in the regulated areas must have evacuation floors above the possible height of inundation and stronger structures so that the buildings will “not be swept away by strong fluid force” (Taki 2018). Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management City and municipal government • Supervision of stormwater drainage in development areas of Class B rivers Support • General support for household -level ood control measures • Installation and maintenance of stormwater storage facilities and underground Residents Main body Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing UrbaninFlood Risk ltration Management facilities Investments in residential houses 30 • Installation and maintenance of stormwater storage facilities and underground Private operators Main body in ltration facilities in commercial buildings Figure 8: Integrating Flood Risk Assessments into Land Use Plans, Shiga Prefecture A: Urban Planning Law (if appropriate measures are implemented, the restriction will be li ed) Probability of occurrence per year 1/2 (0.500) Higher Risk B: Building Standard Law 1/10 (0.100) A (if appropriate measures are implemented, the restriction will be li ed) 1/10 (0.033) 1/10 (0.020) a: No damage 1/10 (0.010) b: Inundation under ground oor level B c: Inundation above ground oor level 1/200 (0.005) d: Houses completely inundated ... Lower Risk e: Houses swept away Level of damages (inundation depth, uid force) a b c d e h<0.1m 0.13.0m u2h>2.5m3/s2 Risk = (Probability of occurrence) X (Level of damage) Source: Modified based on information from Shiga Prefecture (2015). Vision: A Sharing Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility safe and secure town om ood damages Shiga Prefecture has played a central role in IUFRM planning, specifically with regards to setting common goals across Three sectors and establishing the Basic Policy basic for guiding principles Watershed Flood Management. Shiga Prefecture has been actively promoting river and sewerage improvement, setting guidance and policies, providing assistance and subsidies, Urban development that considers heavy rainfall establishing technological standards, and providing appropriate flood risk information. Urban development that retains stormwater Its legally binding policy promotes consensus building and the implementation of watershed flood management Urban development measures. This policy has two broad purposes: utilizes that the (i) to clarify rainwater responsibilities of local governments, businesses, and residents and establish the legal groundwork for a watershed flood management plan; and (ii), by enforcing these policies, to protect residents’ lives, health, and properties from flood damage. Details of the e orts The Shiga Basic Policy for Watershed Flood Management incorporates public opinions through a Watershed Promotion of "river and sewerage improvements" that prevent as a “residents’ Flood Control Committee, knownlarge-scale committee.” river and Generally, surface water oods 10 committee members from a variety of backgrounds such as academia, relevant divisions of public authorities, and residential areas are selected. Enhancement In addition, the committee invites of "watershed other experts. management" The committee that studies mitigates flood management issues and develops stormwater policy recommendations. The committee runo residents’ roles and responsibilities based on consultation and clarifies consensus building with the residents themselves. Promotion of "urban/housing development" that reduces ood damages In IUFRM planning, businesses form consensus by understanding and cooperating in plans and policies for installing Enhancement stormwater storage and infiltration facilities in "evacuation of private measures" facilities that save lives and large-scale of developments. To encourage and citizens enhance these measures, Shiga Prefecture leverages an incentive and assistance system. Residents participate in the policy-making process through the Watershed Flood Management Committee, which serves as a mechanism to promote consensus building. Implementation Body Topic of Furthermore, the government Focus Tasks for Watershed Flood established the Department Management Policy. Public Nation Shiga Prefecture Business Policy Measure Wards Tokyoparticipating Citizens and other regions in Japan clearly define the responsibilities and duties -wideof each organization Institution Operators according to the legal system, River and the administrator of each sector River improvement in the watersheds ofcannot take measures beyond its authority or jurisdiction. In the past, Japan had improvements not established Nogawa/Yazawa a separate watershed authority despite the existence of river rivers and of administrators. The new department collaborates with a range of stakeholders and aims to promote sewerage Promotion rivers and comprehensive acrossusing Sewer improvement watershed flood management a combined the region. sewerage system improvements Sewerage improvements Sewer improvement using a separate system (stormwater) Urban of Enhancement Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated watershed Flood management in Risk Management elementary and middle schools Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 31 Future Challenges Shiga Prefecture sets neighborhood safety levels in innovative ways. Land use regulations and requirements for flood-resilient construction in high-risk areas, which are a major focus of the basic policy, have established a new precedent. In the rest of Japan, high-flood-risk areas are identified based on historic flood damages. However, Shiga Prefecture’s designation is based on estimated future flood risks, the first such example in Japan’s history. The redevelopment of existing houses is required under the regulations for flood-resilient construction in high- flood-risk areas. This raises the importance of consensus building among residents in targeted areas. Currently, in Shiga Prefecture, 50 areas that have residential buildings or are expected to plan developments are eligible for Area A classification. However, out of these cases, only two (Shiga Prefecture 2018b) have been designated as Area A. In an effort to address the risks posed by the area’s many rivers with raised beds, the Shiga Basic Policy for Watershed Flood Management estimates where houses could be inundated or swept away. Such areas might expect a certain level of fluid force, which led the prefectural government to consider restricting the construction of buildings. However, there is currently no sufficient scientific evidence of the impact of fluid force to buildings. Therefore, the “map of fluid force” is used merely as a reference, along with other maps indicating flood risk and safety, not as a criterion for high-flood-risk areas. Shiga Prefecture plans to make fluid force a criterion for high- flood-risk areas when sufficient scientific evidence is gained (Shiga Prefecture 2014a). However, gathering such evidence remains a challenge. 4.3 Case of Setagaya Ward Context Importance of IUFRM in Setagaya Ward Setagaya Ward is the most populated special ward 22 in Tokyo and is located at the southwestern corner of the TMG. Though higher in elevation and with more agricultural land and green spaces compared with eastern Tokyo, due to rapid housing development, Setagaya’s dense urban fabric has significantly reduced its capacities to infiltrate, absorb, and store rainwater over the years. 23 Wards With the intensity and uncertainty of rainfall increasing due to climate Setagaya Ward change, Setagaya has experienced various urban floods in recent years. In September 2005, torrential rain affected Tokyo and brought over 100 mm/hour of rainfall to the area. The stormwater runoff from rivers and sewerage systems inundated 221 houses above floor level, and 245 5km Tokyo houses experienced basement flooding. Similarly, in 2013, multiple Bay rainfall events exceeded 60 mm/hour, with many households affected Source: Google Earth. by above-floor-level and basement flooding. Note: km = kilometer. In light of this context, in 2009, the ward developed the Setagaya Ward Basic Policy for Heavy Rain (updated in 2016) and the Setagaya Ward Heavy Rain Measures Action Plan (updated in 2018) to strengthen flood prevention and protection measures. They share the overall goal of the TMG Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management, while complementing it with specific targets and measures to be implemented at the ward level for IUFRM. They elaborate on how the ward and TMG coordinate and share responsibilities to protect the lives and assets of Setagaya’s residents during floods. 22 Setagaya Ward was home to approximately 909,000 people as of March 2019 (http://www.city.setagaya.lg.jp/ kurashi/107/157/692/694/1888/d00121945.html). Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 32 Setagaya’s policy and action plan for heavy rain were developed through a multistakeholder and citizen-led process, which took a unique approach to integrating various nature-based solutions for rainwater harvesting and management, as well as community-based solutions for increased flood risk awareness and preparedness. These complement infrastructural measures to improve river embankments and drainage. Public: 119,000 m3 Step 1: Goal Setting Remaining gap 12% 641,000 m3 Private: The Setagaya Ward Basic Policy 68% for Heavy Rain and Setagaya Ward Heavy Rain 195,000 mMeasures 3 Action Plan adopts overall visions, plans, and legal the TMG’s overall flood management goal, and clearly define how the ward’s 20% frameworks link to other relevant policy frameworks (see figure 9). The Setagaya Ward Basic Policy for Heavy Rain was established as a sectoral policy under the Setagaya Ward Urban Development Policy, which is a key policy under the Setagaya Ward Basic Strategy and Action Plan. In close coordination with the national-, TMG-, and ward- level legal and policy frameworks, the Setagaya Ward Heavy Rain Measures Action Plan outlines the ward’s specific measures to deliver goals with multiple priorities at various levels. Figure 9: How Setagaya Ward’s Heavy Rain Basic Policy and Action Plan Connects with Other Legal and Policy Frameworks Setagaya Ward Basic Strategy & Action Plan Related Legal and Policy Frameworks Urban Development Policy National: Comprehensive Flood Risk Management Plans Heavy Rain Basic Policy & Action Plan Tokyo Metropolitan Government: Basic Policy Other Individual Plans & Policies for Heavy Rain Management & Action Plans Setagaya Green Basic Plan and Action Plan Setagaya Ward: Flood Defense Plan (Flood Defense Law Article 32) etc... Source: Authors’ compilation. Elevation (m) Loire (France) Colorado (USA) Joganji Garonne (France) As part of TMG’s Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management and Action Plan, Setagaya Ward is a priority area for 1,000 flood risk management given its geographic location within high-risk watersheds. Therefore, Setagaya Ward’s goals Kiso Yodo for high-priority watersheds: are fully in line with TMG’s targets 800 Fuji Arakawa Rivers in Japan • 10-year goal: to prevent flood damage during heavy rain of 55 mm/hour as much as possible. If a historic maximum rainfall were to occur, the ward aims to focus on protecting the lives of its residents. Rivers in the world 600 • 30-year goal: to prevent any flood damage from heavy rain of 60 mm/hour; and, second, to prevent inundation Yoshino above floor level by rainfall of approximately Seine (France) in the ward area and 65 mm/hour in the Tama area. 75 mm/hour For rainfall that exceeds Shinano these levels, the policy seeks to focus on preventing casualties. 400 Rhône (France) Mekong (Thailand et al.) Additionally, the ward sets out three key principles: 200 with rain. This • 1) Living Tone centers on an awareness of the importance of understanding and communicating the Nile (Egypt et al.) • risks of heavy rain, river levels, and potential floods to inform and encourage citizens’ own disaster (USA) Mississippi • mitigation, 0 preparedness, and evacuation actions at the household and neighborhood levels. Amazon (Brazil, Peru) • 2) Storing rain. This focuses on 200 the importance 400 600 of public 800 and private investments 1,000 1,200 in the installation of water 1,400 • storage facilities to retain or delay the flow of rainwater into urban drainage systems and thus avoid Distance from the River’s Mouth (km) • overflow. • 3) Utilizing rain. This centers on the importance of restoring collected rainwater back into the ground, as well • as recycling water for toilets, for the watering of plants, and as backup storage in case of an emergency. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Exposure B B’ (population, assets, critical facilities) Small Large • River and sewerage improvement status Vulnerability C C’ • Local disaster prevention capacity Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 33 Low High • Impacts on community and society Impact D D’ Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization • Consideration of environment Small Large Planning Priority Low High In full alignment with TMG’s policies and action plans for flood risk management, the shared but differentiated roles and targets of the various sectors have been defined within Setagaya Ward’s heavy rain policy and action plan. The four key sectoral approaches are: • 1) Improving river and sewerage systems • 2) Promoting infiltration, retention, storage, and utilization of stormwater as watershed-based flood • management measures • 3) Developing housing and neighborhoods so as to reduce inundation from floods • 4) Saving lives through enhancing evacuation measures Overall, river and sewerage management are led by TMG, in close coordination with the ward’s responsible Shakujii River departments. On the other hand, “green” (nature-based) and nonstructural measures and targets for watershed management, saving lives, and evacuation are led mainly by Setagaya Ward and its various stakeholders. Setagaya’s sector-based flood management targets are illustrated below. Kanda River Nogawa River River and Sewerage System Improvement • River. Collaborating closely with TMG, Setagaya Ward aims to manage rainfall by river improvement measures, such as river drainage interventions (widening of channels, and so on) Meguro and retention ponds along the River watersheds, to prevent above-floor inundation from rainfall of 75 mm/hour in the ward area and 65 mm/hour in the Tama area. In particular, Setagaya Ward, in close partnership with TMG, is prioritizing interventions along rivers without capacity for 50 mm/hour rainfall management. • Sewerage. Collaborating with TMG, Setagaya Ward aims to manage rainfall of 50 mm/hour by using sewer Sakai River pipes and stormwater storage facilities, as well as avoid casualties caused by inundation in watershed areas by rainfall of 60 mm/hour. Watershed-Based Flood Management Measures 3 • 10-year goal (by 2021): to improve capacity to tackle a total of 480,000 m of rainfall, Prioritized the areas for equivalent heavy of 5 mm/ rain measures by the river sector hour by promoting efficient infiltration, retention, storage, 5km and utilization of stormwater. Prioritized areas for heavy rain measures • 30-year goal (long-term goal): to manage approximately 960,000 m3, by orthe the sector of 10 mm/hour of equivalent sewerage rainfall, by promoting efficient infiltration, retention, storage, and utilization of rainwater/stormwater. Since 1975, Setagaya Ward has been working with its residents and businesses to install rainwater harvesting, storage, and stormwater infiltration facilities throughout the city. As a result, as of March 2015, the ward-wide rain and stormwater management capacity achieved through these investments was reported as approximately 310,000 m3. New 10- and 30-year targets were also set, in line with TMG’s target of achieving 600 m3/ha of rain and stormwater management. Setagaya Ward’s achievements against proposed targets are illustrated in figure 10. A community-based rainwater harvesting campaign promotes household and community participation, which is described in box 4. Figure 10: Setagaya Ward’s Progress toward Watershed-based Flood Management Targets Public: 119,000 m3 Remaining gap 12% 641,000 m3 68% Private: 195,000 m3 20% Source: Authors’ compilation based on Setagaya Ward (2016). Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 34 Box 4: Community Based Rainwater Harvesting Campaign in Setagaya In response to increasing torrential rain and inundation damage, Setagaya Ward leaders and residents gathered to launch a campaign called “Let’s build a Setagaya dam together.” It is estimated that if each household in Setagaya installs a 300-liter stormwater retention tank, the collective retention volume of stormwater would be approximately 140,000 tons (or m3), the equivalent of a small-scale dam in Japan. The ward established a subsidy program in 2007, providing financial support up to 50 percent of the cost of both tank and construction fees, up to a maximum of ¥35,000 (approximately $318), to encourage the installation of small tanks by households. As of 2013, 384 cases were funded and 65,974 liters of rainwater harvesting tanks were installed for residents’ nonpotable water usage, such as for irrigating garden plants and washing cars. Local residents and communities lead the O&M of the rainwater harvesting and storage systems installed in their businesses and in households. Source: Authors’ compilation based on information from Setagaya Ward (2015a). Figure B4.1: Rainwater harvesting tanks installed in Setagaya Ward Source: Setagaya Ward 2018b. In order to fill the remaining gap, Setagaya Ward actively promotes “green” infrastructure as a major approach toward strengthening watershed management, focusing on measures that store, filter, and minimize runoff of stormwater. Setagaya Ward defines green infrastructure as “infrastructure and a way of thinking that promote stormwater storage and infiltration, flood prevention, water purification and use of underground water by effectively using functions possessed by nature such as green land and water” (Setagaya Ward 2018a). Through advancing green infrastructure, Setagaya Ward also aims to create an attractive living environment. Therefore, the promotion of green infrastructure in Setagaya furthers the goals of both flood and watershed management and urban design and development. Additionally, green infrastructure measures are also promoted through Setagaya’s environmental plan, the Setagaya Green Basic Plan and Action Plan (Setagaya Ward 2015b). This plan highlights the value and importance of urban green spaces involving temples, houses, forests, watersheds, and agricultural land, and promotes the preservation of green spaces for water circulation, as well as to store and infiltrate stormwater. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 35 To promote green infrastructure, Setagaya Ward is undertaking several awareness raising, capacity building, and cross-sectoral partnership efforts. Specific green infrastructure actions promoted through the basic policy are as follows. Introducing the concept of green infrastructure through promoting: • Residents’ awareness of the importance of green infrastructure in watershed measures through pamphlets and other media • The creation of “rain gardens” for storage and infiltration of stormwater from drainpipes at small-scale private facilities and existing houses Advancing green infrastructure through public sector initiatives such as: • Preservation and installation of green spaces or parks, or renovation of existing parks as well as development of new facilities and renovation of existing facilities managed by Setagaya Ward, Tokyo, and the national government • Installation of green streets (streets that allow stormwater drainage from the sides of the roads and infiltration through planted zones) following the construction of new roads and renovation and maintenance of existing roads Promoting engagement and implementation of green infrastructure by the private sector and households through: • Installing “rain gardens” and “rainwater planters”23 at public and private facilities for stormwater infiltration • Requesting local landowners and managers to install stormwater storage and infiltration facilities Monitoring, reporting, and assessing the performance of green infrastructure through: • Quantifying the capacity of stormwater storage and infiltration systems such as green spaces Implementing adequate maintenance and operations through: • Inspection and cleaning of installed green infrastructure • Cooperating with the related departments of the ward government to promote the preservation and installation of green space Prioritization Furthermore, Setagaya Ward’s heavy rain basic policy and action plan prioritize the promotion of flood risk management, especially through green and nonstructural measures in vulnerable locations, public spaces, and buildings and private homes. These measures are a priority for Setagaya Ward as approximately 57 percent of its land area is publicly owned (excluding roads) and 49 percent is for residential use (Setagaya Ward 2016). The priority areas include those: • That have experienced frequent flood damage in recent years (for more information, see appendix, case 6) • Where public facilities are concentrated • Where the installation of stormwater storage and infiltration facilities will be effective and is one of the goals of the community development plans • Where installation of these facilities and promotion of watershed management is being considered 23 Rainwater planters are planter boxes normally located in households, as street furniture, or as landscaping features within commercial development, with a capacity to retain rainwater by storing it within its soil, gravel, and plant roots. It can be made from new or recycled materials, and excess stormwater is normally designed to overflow through pipes at the bottom of the planter, which drains back into the system. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 36 Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Sharing The Setagaya Ward Basic Policy for Heavy Rain sets out IUFRM roles and responsibilities for the ward and city government, and also encourages self-help and mutual help among residents, communities, the private sector, and civil society organizations. Therefore, engagement and consensus building with various stakeholders in the planning, implementation, and sustainability of these flood risk management measures are critical. Setagaya Ward works closely with existing community self-governance committees and business associations to conduct consultations, training sessions, requests for support, information sharing, and awareness raising throughout the flood risk management efforts. These efforts are implemented together and in line with Setagaya’s community and citizens’ engagement process for urban development, civil works, and DRM initiatives. (An example of a collaborative green infrastructure project, the Tamagawa Rise project, and the role and responsibility sharing between the public sector, private sector, and community is included in Knowledge Note 3.) Consensus building and responsibility sharing with TMG and the national authority is very important for advancing Setagaya Ward’s flood risk management efforts. This is done through clearly defining the relationship and roles of the ward, TMG, and the national government in the heavy rain policy and action plan. Figure 11 illustrates how within the basic policy, stakeholders are responsible for specific flood management measures. This has led to close coordination during the development, operation, and maintenance of flood management measures implemented within the same location and/or watershed, such as coordinating the location of water storage or detention facilities (led by the ward) near the construction of new roads and underground discharge channels (led by the national government and/or TMG), and so on. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Enhancement of "watershed management" that mitigates stormwater runo Promotion of "urban/housing development" that reduces ood damages Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Enhancement Flood Risk of "evacuation Management measures" Investments that save lives of 37 citizens Figure 11: Setagaya Ward’s Heavy Rain Measures and Responsible Stakeholders Implementation Body Topic of Focus Tasks Nation Public Business Policy Measure Tokyo Wards Citizens -wide Institution Operators River River improvement in the watersheds of improvements Nogawa/Yazawa rivers Promotion of rivers and Sewer improvement using a combined sewerage system improvements Sewerage improvements Sewer improvement using a separate system (stormwater) Enhancement of watershed management in elementary and middle schools Enhancement of watershed management in Facilities parks and open plazas managed by Enhancement of watershed management in wards o ces and houses Enhancement of watershed management in roads Enhancement of watershed management in Facilities roads and facilities managed by the managed by national government and TMG the national government Enhancement of watershed management in Enhancement and TMG facilities managed by public institutions of watershed management Enhancement of watershed management in large-scale private facilities Enhancement of watershed management in small-scale private facilities Private facilities Enhancement of watershed management in private roads Enhancement of watershed management in existing houses Promotion of rainwater utilization facilities Promotion of rainwater use Promotion of rainwater tanks Promotion of green infrastructure Promotion of advance notice on ooding Promotion of measures for housing and Promotion of ood-resilient housing development urban development Promotion of mechanisms for community and town development Enhancement Promotion of advance notice on ooding of evacuation measures Promotion of ood-resilient housing development Main body Source: Authors’ compilation based on information from Setagaya Ward (2018a). Cooperation Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 38 Future Challenges and Next Steps Monitoring and sharing the progress of implementation are critical actions. In order to continue and scale Setagaya’s integrated approach to flood risk management, there is a need to continue to monitor the implementation of heavy rain measures to ensure close coordination and collaboration between various sectors and stakeholders. Key stakeholders are Setagaya Ward, local residents, businesses, the national government, and TMG. Furthermore, various sectoral departments—including sewerage, rivers, roads, urban development, environment, and DRM—all share roles and responsibilities in promoting heavy rain measures in Setagaya. To facilitate continued coordination and collaboration between these various groups, monitoring and sharing progress is key. Based on periodic progress reports, adjustments will need to be made to ensure effectiveness. Setagaya Ward has been using the “Plan, Do, See, and Action” cycle to monitor progress, and has been convening periodic committee meetings to review the progress of heavy rain measures, especially in high-priority areas. Monitoring and evaluating performance are also important. In order to measure progress against targets, effective operation and maintenance of installed facilities, as well as the monitoring of their performance, are extremely important. Given that many green infrastructure investments are promoted in public facilities, Setagaya Ward aims to continue to closely monitor the performance of installed green infrastructure, such as rainwater infiltration and storage tanks, as well as ensure that effective monitoring takes place. Remaining challenges exist in the monitoring and maintenance of residential and private sector facilities. Some innovative initiatives for promoting the O&M and performance evaluation of green infrastructure are included in Knowledge Note 4. Scaling flood management measures within the private sector and residential homes is essential to meet ambitious targets. Under the Setagaya Ward Heavy Rain Measures Action Plan, businesses and residents, especially new developments, are highly encouraged to manage stormwater through the installation of rainwater infiltration and storage measures. New developments having an area greater than 150 m2 are required to submit a rain/stormwater management plan, but there is very little enforcement by the ward government. While most development in Setagaya and Tokyo so far complies with policy mechanisms to incentivize further uptake of stormwater management, raising awareness of the potential benefits of green infrastructure would help expand efforts to create it beyond the public sector. To this end, monitoring, evaluating, and quantifying the socioeconomic and environmental benefits of related investments (beyond flood risk management) are key. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 39 5. Lessons Learned and Key Takeaways This Knowledge Note explored Japan’s process in planning and prioritizing related investments as part of an integrated approach to urban flood risk management. This included a description of the evolution of management of urban floods in Japan, in terms of policies and approaches, as well as a summary of the institutional arrangements and key roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders. Related to the evolution of IUFRM in Japan, innovative efforts in the Tsurumi River Watershed in 1981 were instrumental in advancing the watershed-wide approach to flood risk management in Japan. The concept of an integrated approach to flood management was further advanced through the introduction of the SUFDML enacted in 2003 for eight designated rivers. In 2013, a 100 mm/hour Safety Plan was initiated by the MLIT to tackle the increasing impacts of concentrated heavy rain in urban areas. Responsibility for the safety plan is held by the local government and the public authorities for river and sewerage management. In addition, cities, in collaboration with the national government and research institutes, are increasingly exploring various ways to understand and integrate climate change risks within their flood management plans. In terms of stakeholders, national and local governments, the private sector, citizens, and academia work together to set and achieve shared goals for mitigating the risks and damages of urban floods. Within the government, the departments managing rivers, drainage and sewerage, watersheds, urban planning and development, the environment, and DRM24 collaborate to determine and share responsibility for actions to address identified flood risks. The review of the planning and prioritization process focused on the role of local governments. In Japan, urban flood risk management plans and objectives are developed in line with the national Disaster Countermeasures Basic Law (DCBL). Based on this high-level goal, specific long- and short-term targets are developed to address the unique flood risks and geographic contexts of each city. Cities also prioritize certain regions or measures based on different regional flood risk contexts. During the process, cities use risk assessments (discussed in Knowledge Note 1), cost-benefit analyses, and engagement and consensus building with communities and stakeholders. Cities are increasingly aware that flood risks cannot be managed effectively without considering structural and nonstructural measures. Key nonstructural flood risk management tools and approaches considered by cities in Japan include water, land use, and disaster risk management through urban planning, building codes, promoting awareness of flood risks, promoting relocation by providing risk information, and enhancing flood alert systems. Key urban development laws include Japan’s City Planning Act, which regulates land use, urban facilities, and urban development projects in Japan, and the Building Standard Law and Urban Planning Law and Ordinance, according to which local governments can designate areas as vulnerable to disasters such as floods, tsunamis, and storm surges, and even prohibit construction of residential buildings in vulnerable areas and to set other development restrictions for disaster prevention. Throughout the process, cities actively engage the national government, local community, and private firms in order to not only build consensus on the proposed flood management investments, but also garner support in sharing responsibilities for the implementation of critical steps, such as design and construction, financing, and O&M. Private firms and communities are making greater investments in flood management to meet the increasing and diversifying risks of urban floods. Based on the case reviews, this Knowledge Note identified a three-step process including goal setting, planning and prioritization, and consensus building. The lessons learned, outlined below, highlight aspects for other countries to consider. The TMG’s IUFRM approach shows how ambitious cityside flood risk management goals are set, together with sectoral targets and both structural and nonstructural measures, through a coordinated approach. Shiga Prefecture highlights progressive land use planning and building codes. Setagaya Ward demonstrates an active, bottom-up, community-led approach, with wide application of green infrastructure solutions providing multiple benefits simultaneously. Finally, this Knowledge Note builds on the information about flood risk assessment and communication efforts presented in Knowledge Note 1; and prepares ground for information presented in Knowledge Note 3, which focuses on the design and implementation of specific solutions, as well as the operations and maintenance practices presented in Knowledge Note 4. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 40 Step 1: Goal Setting • Regularly update goals based on evidence. Goal setting is based on risk assessment simulations that take into account scientific evidence, including external forces such as historical rainfall in the targeted areas (see Knowledge Note 1) and known damages. Moreover, a city’s integrated policy and improvement goals should be set based on comprehensive evaluations of their feasibility, efficiency, impact, and economy. Committees consisting of academic experts and local stakeholders are important in the course of decision making. • Align local and national goals. Whenever available, the laws, guidelines, standards, and goals of the national government should be referenced to ensure alignment and consistency. At the same time, cities may foresee a need to develop their own city-level goals and plans for IUFRM, especially as flood risk management becomes more complex amid growing climate change risks. Cities in Japan have developed and utilized city-specific flood management plans, such as measures against heavy rains and watershed management, in order to understand the remaining risks and gaps that cannot be managed by large-scale structural measures led by the national government. They have sought to identify opportunities to develop flood management measures through engagement of various stakeholders (public, private, academia, and community), sectors (river, sewerage, watershed, urban planning and development, environment, and DRM), and approaches (structural, nonstructural, and green). In this way, cities in Japan are putting forth a framework for how to save the lives of people in the face of any type of expected or unprecedented flood event, and reducing damages to assets and economic losses. • Pair long-term goals with realistic milestones. Citywide flood management goals, linked with cities’ overall urban development priorities, are set based on the results of flood risk assessments, and consider the following factors: (i) characteristics of areas and floods; (ii) the efficiency of past flood management efforts; (iii) capacity and impact of each sector, including rivers, sewerage systems, and watersheds; (iv) clarification and segmentation of goals and indicators; (v) phased IUFRM development planning; (vi) consistency with the relevant river basin plan; and (vii) impact on society and the economy. The experience of Tokyo and many other cities in Japan demonstrates the importance of ensuring that overall long-term flood risk management goals be kept ambitious, in order to effectively plan for expected risks as well as worst-case scenarios (i.e., probable maximum precipitation, etc.). At the same time, realistic milestones set for a specific time frame (for the medium to short term) and sector can be helpful to monitor progress and evaluate the effectiveness of the plan. • Consider the effects of climate change. Considering the uncertainty of climate change and unknown risks, stakeholders must recognize and prepare for external forces that exceed the capacity of planned measures, especially of structural measures. Additionally, it is important to simulate incidents in which facilities cannot prevent inundation, and share disaster risk information with all stakeholders to cope with increasingly intense floods. These simulations should consider a range of external forces based on flood design scales. The information gathered from risk assessments should be leveraged by all stakeholders in implementing all possible measures for flood risk reduction. Therefore, Japan has been communicating the risk of unprecedented events to citizens. Based on this understanding, communities should prepare for floods and publicize possible inundation areas according to the highest design scale. This management method is based on the Flood Prevention Act, which was partly revised in 2015. Step 2: Integrated Planning and Prioritization • Share responsibilities to advance common goals. Once a citywide flood risk management goal is set, sectoral targets are determined based on various factors including: (i) the city’s strategy and vision; (ii) the nature of mandates and role sharing between each sector (river or sewerage bureau) for current flood risks; (iii) assignment, budget allocation, and inputs such as technical and social feasibility analysis of management goals; (iv) advice from academic experts sitting on committees; (v) assignment of planning and management goals; and (vi) prioritization of implementation steps. While sectoral departments commit to separate flood management targets, close coordination and collaboration enable the effective implementation of IUFRM. For example, given the close relationship between sewerage management and river improvement projects (as rainfall will drain into either river or sewerage systems), if the progress of a river improvement project is slow, then it impacts the stormwater management capacity of the adjacent sewerage systems. Therefore, the timing of construction should be closely coordinated. • Integrate structural and nonstructural measures. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different IUFRM measures is important. Structural measures significantly reduce flood risk but require large budgets and ongoing maintenance. On the other hand, nonstructural interventions, such as the creation of hazard Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 41 • maps and evacuation training, are comparatively low cost and can be started immediately. Thus, nonstructural measures complement structural measures, and are important in reducing flood risks and damages until appropriate structural measures are in place. Also, nonstructural measures such as land use planning, zoning, and DRM can help mitigate damages caused by floods that exceed design levels. Green or nature- based structural measures are normally multipurpose and can result in diverse benefits besides flood risk management, such as urban and community revitalization, environmental sustainability, and livability enhancement. The process of the site-specific selection and design of flood management measures will be further discussed in Knowledge Note 3. • Prioritize measures based on local contexts. Prioritization of IUFRM within the sector and at the project level should be based on weighing the pros and cons as well as costs and benefits of various measures vis-à-vis local hazards and socioeconomic and cultural factors. Cities set different targets for flood risk management within their municipal boundaries based on different geographic and hazard risk characteristics, as seen in the case of TMG and Shiga Prefecture. Additionally, critical infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals, and transportation networks (e.g., the underground metro) may also require different approaches to prioritizing progressive and function-specific IUFRM measures and approaches. CBAs are often undertaken at the project level to compare various IUFRM approaches and tools appropriate for the site. As IUFRM approaches expand and diversify, there is a need to further develop CBA methods to effectively integrate the various nonquantifiable benefits that may go beyond flood risk management, particularly for nonstructural and green (nature-based) solutions. Step 3: Consensus Building and Responsibility Sharing • City governments have a key role to play in brokering partnerships for IUFRM. IUFRM is an integrated approach that is driven and implemented by a wide range of sectors and stakeholders, as described above. Therefore, the city government has a significant role to play in garnering consensus among a diverse and expanding set of stakeholders. There are several tools and approaches that can be used in the consensus-building process, including joint conferences involving academia, related governmental divisions, and residents; joint risk assessments and flooding simulations of river floods and surface water floods (as seen in the case of Tokyo’s river and sewerage bureaus); public hearings; consultation with the private sector; incentive systems such as subsidy schemes and legal regulations; and periodic personnel exchanges within governmental organizations. • Roles and opportunities for the private sector and community members are growing. Additionally, there is a significant need—and opportunity—for the private sector and community to take the lead in flood risk management. The public sector’s capacity alone is not enough to mitigate expected and unprecedented flood risks that may put the lives and livelihoods of citizens in danger. Therefore, various financial incentives, technical assistance, human resource development, awareness raising, and information sharing with diverse stakeholders will be much needed to further expand various innovative IUFRM efforts in cities. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 42 6. References Bureau of Sewerage, TMG (Tokyo Metropolitan Government). 2014. “Statistics of Tokyo Sewerage.” Accessed February 1, 2019. http://www.gesui.metro.tokyo.jp/business/kanko/kankou/2014tokyo/05/. European Commission. n.d. “Nature-Based Solutions: The Challenge.” https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs. Furuki (Bureau of Urban Development—TMG). 2018. “About Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Measures of Tokyo Metropolitan Government.” Interview by Toyoda (Yachiyo Engineerng Company), Takahashi (Yachiyo Engineerng Company), Takemoto (World Bank), and Yoda (World Bank), November 2. Ishiwatari, Mikio. 2016. Disaster Prevention in Japan and the World. Tokyo, Japan: Kajima Institute Publishing Co. Ltd. Japan Sewage Works Association. 2018. Statistics of Sewerage: Fiscal Year 2015. Tokyo: Japan Sewage Works Association. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 2018a. Technical Study Report on Countermeasures against Huge Disasters Causing National Crisis. http://committees.jsce.or.jp/chair/node/21. ———. 2018b. Technical Report on Devastating Disasters Measures. June. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://committees.jsce.or.jp/chair/system/files/ 付録 3_ 河川分科会報告書 .pdf Jha, Abhas K., Robin Bloch, and Jessica Lamond. 2012. Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: World Bank. Library of Congress. 2015. “Japan: Flood Prevention and Sewerage Service Acts Amended.” June 11. Accessed January 26, 2019. https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/japan-flood-prevention-and-sewerage-service-acts-amended/. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2009. “City Planning Act.” June 11. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/search/elawsSearch/elaws_search/lsg0500/detail?lawId=344CO0000000158_2018 1115_429CO0000000280&openerCode=1. ———. 2018. “The Building Standard Law.” September 25. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/search/elawsSearch/elaws_search/lsg0500/detail?lawId=325AC0000000201_2018 0925_430AC0000000067&openerCode=1. MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism). 2007. “Status of Disaster Critical Area Designation (Subcommittee for River Improvement Basic Policy).” March 7. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/shinngikai_blog/shaseishin/kasenbunkakai/shouiinkai/kihonhoushin/070307/ pdf/s1.pdf. ———. 2015. “Methodology to Set the Maximum Expected Level of Rainfall.” July. Accessed January 26, 2019. http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/shishin_guideline/pdf/shinsuisoutei_honnbun_1507.pdf. ———. 2017. “Socio-Economic Impacts of Large Scale Disasters in the Past.” December 25. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/bousai/shinsuihigai/pdf/171225_jirei_2_lo.pdf. ———. 2018a. “About Urban Floods Countermeasures Based on Heavy Rains in July 2018.” September 29. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001256154.pdf. ———. 2018b. “Estimation of Future Rainfall Amount (The 2nd Technical Review Committee on Flood Control Plan Based on Climate Change, May 11, 2018).” May 11. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/shinngikai_blog/chisui_kentoukai/dai02kai/dai02kai_siryou3-1.pdf. ———. 2018c. “Second Technical Committee for Flood Management Planning in Face of Climate Change.” http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/shinngikai_blog/chisui_kentoukai/index.html ———. n.d. (a). “Worsening Urban Floods: Visible Risks of Urban Surface Water Floods.” Accessed February 1, 2019. http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/pamphlet_jirei/bousai/saigai/kiroku/suigai/suigai_3-3-2.html. ———. n.d. (b). “Reconstruction Vision for Social Awareness of Flood Disaster Prevention.” Accessed January 26, 2019. http://www.mlit.go.jp/river/mizubousaivision/index.html. ———. n.d. (c). “The Objective and Role of a Location Optimization Plan.” Accessed May 22, 2019. http://www.mlit.go.jp/en/toshi/city_plan/compactcity_network2.html. National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management. 2004.“Glossary—Terminology for River.” Accessed September 17, 2019. http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/rcg/newhp/yougo/words/028/html/028_main.html. Research Group of Specific Urban River Innundation Measures. 2004. Interpretation of Specific Urban River Innundation Measures. Tokyo, Japan: Taisei Shuppan, Co., Ltd. Setagaya Ward. 2015a. “Efforts on Setagaya Dam.” February. Accessed February 1, 2019. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management Knowledge Note 2: Planning and Prioritizing Urban Flood Risk Management Investments 43 Setagaya Ward. 2015a. “Overview of Setagaya Dam Project—Watershed Management of Setagaya Ward.” February. Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/file/attachment/1019668.pdf. ———. 2015b. “Setagaya Ward Basic Green Plans (2018–2027).” February. Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.city.setagaya.lg.jp/mokuji/sumai/010/002/001/d00017133_d/fil/4.pdf . ———. 2016. “Setagaya Ward Basic Policy for Heavy Rain & Action Plan.” Accessed 2019. http://www.city.setagaya.lg.jp/kurashi/104/141/559/d00027833_d/fil/27833_11.pdf. ———. 2018a. “Setagaya Ward Action Plans for Heavy Rain Measures (2018–2021).” June. Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.city.setagaya.lg.jp/mokuji/kurashi/005/003/007/d00137458_d/fil/137458-3.pdf. ———. 2018b. “Subsidy Program for Rainwater Harvesting and Storage Systems.” March. Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.city.setagaya.lg.jp/mokuji/kurashi/005/003/004/d00032894.html. Shiga Prefecture. 2012a. “Basic Policy for Watershed Flood Management.” March, 16. Accessed 2019. http://www.shigaken-gikai.jp/voices/GikaiDoc/attach/Nittei/Nt1903_05.pdf. ———. 2012b. “Shiga Prefecture Basic Policy for Watershed Flood Management.” Accessed April 8, 2019. http://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/h/ryuiki/kihonhousin/kihonhousin.html. ———. 2014a. “Interpretation of Shiga Prefecture Ordinance on Promotion of River Watershed Flood Control.” October 17. Accessed February 1, 2019. http://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/h/ryuiki/jyourei/files/jyoreikaisetu141017.pdf. ———. 2014b. “Shiga Prefecture, Challenges and Opportunities from Typhoon No 18 in 2013.” Accessed April 2019. http://www.kouiki-kansai.jp/material/files/group/3/1412054410.pdf. ———. 2015. “Basic Policy for Watershed Flood Control.” October 16. Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/ippan/kendoseibi/kasenkoan/19535.html. ———. 2018a. “About Neighborhood Safety Map.” July 13. Accessed October 2, 2019. https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/ippan/kendoseibi/kasenkoan/19581.html. ———. 2018b. “Inundation Warning Area.” November 26. Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/ippan/kendoseibi/kasenkoan/19549.html . Taki, Kentaro. 2018. “Management of Flooding Causes and Green Infrastructure.” Journal of Hydrological System 109: 23. TMG (Tokyo Metropolitan Government). 1986. Visions for Comprehensive Flood Management in TMG: Report 61 to the Governor of Tokyo (Report 61). Chapter 2. Accessed April 2019. http://www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/topics/h26/pdf/topi014/02_genjo.pdf. ———. 2014. “Tokyo Basic Policy for Heavy Rain Management—Updated.” June. Accessed 2019. http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/INET/KEIKAKU/2014/06/DATA/70o6u100.pdf. ———. n.d. “The Structure of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG).” http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/english/about/structure/structure04.html. World Bank. 2017. "Kitakyushu Model Subsector: Interplay between Solid Waste and Urban Flood Risks.” https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/30950. Learning from Japan’s Experience in Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management UFCOP Urban Floods Community of Practice is an umbrella program to share operational and technical experience and solutions for advancing an integrated approach to urban flood risk management, and leveraging expertise and knowledge of different stakeholders and practice groups and across the WBG. The program supports the development of an interactive space for collaboration and exchange on the subject, facilitating users’ access to information and adaptation of knowledge to local conditions, and bringing together different stakeholders to enhance collective knowledge on integrated urban flood risk management. World Bank Tokyo DRM Hub The World Bank Tokyo Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Hub supports developing countries to mainstream DRM in national development planning and investment programs. As part of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, the DRM Hub provides technical assistance grants and connects Japanese and global DRM expertise and solutions with World Bank teams and government officials. The DRM Hub was established in 2014 through the Japan-World Bank Program for Mainstreaming DRM in Developing Countries—a partnership between Japan’s Ministry of Finance and the World Bank. GFDRR The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) is a global partnership that helps developing countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards and adapt to climate change. Working with over 400 local, national, regional, and international partners, GFDRR provides grant financing, technical assistance, training, and knowledge sharing activities to mainstream disaster and climate risk management in policies and strategies. Managed by the World Bank, GFDRR is supported by 36 countries and 10 international organizations. Contact World Bank Disaster Risk Management Hub, Tokyo Phone: +81-3-3597-1320 Email: drmhubtokyo@worldbank.org Website: www.worldbank.org/drmhubtokyo