4.6 Article

Advantages of the Open Levee (Kasumi-Tei), a Traditional Japanese River Technology on the Matsuura River, from an Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction Perspective

期刊

WATER
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13040480

关键词

open levee; kasumi-tei; ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction; disaster risk reduction; flood control; traditional river technology; disaster resilience; Matsuura River

资金

  1. Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN) [14200103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study on traditional Japanese river technology demonstrated the effectiveness of flood plain open levees as a means of Eco-DRR in terms of flood control and ecosystem services. The open levees offered cost advantages and enhanced ecosystem services, indicating the potential effectiveness of other traditional Japanese river technologies in strengthening Eco-DRR.
Large-scale disasters, such as hurricanes, cyclones, tsunamis, and forest fires, have caused considerable damage in recent years. This study investigated two case studies of discontinuous open levees (kasumi-tei), which are a traditional Japanese river technology, on the Matsuura River at the sites of Okawano and Azame-no-se, and evaluated the advantages of these levees from the perspective of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). These case studies were conducted through literature surveys, flood observations, and oral interviews. The systems in both the cases were flood control systems utilizing ecosystem services. The traditional river technology (the flood plain open levee) served as an effective Eco-DRR in both cases. Additionally, the flood plain levee technology enhanced the ecosystem services at both sites, including not only flood control capabilities, but also other ecosystem services. Furthermore, the open levees offered substantial cost advantages over their alternatives. These results suggest that other traditional Japanese river technologies may also be effective in strengthening Eco-DRR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据