Articles | Volume 20, issue 1
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 197–220, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-197-2020
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 197–220, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-197-2020

Research article 17 Jan 2020

Research article | 17 Jan 2020

Sandbag replacement systems – a nonsensical and costly alternative to sandbagging?

Lena Lankenau et al.

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (21 Aug 2019) by Heidi Kreibich
AR by Lena Lankenau on behalf of the Authors (27 Sep 2019)  Author's response    Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Oct 2019) by Heidi Kreibich
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (01 Nov 2019)
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (05 Nov 2019)
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (13 Nov 2019) by Heidi Kreibich
AR by Lena Lankenau on behalf of the Authors (21 Nov 2019)  Author's response    Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (27 Nov 2019) by Heidi Kreibich
Download
Short summary
Sandbag and sandbag replacement systems (SBRSs) for flood defence are compared in terms of functionality (practical tests), costs, time, helpers and logistics (fictitious realistic scenarios). SBRSs are comparable in their functionality to sandbagging. All of the SBRSs considered show time-saving and logistical advantages. Under the assumed conditions, the higher investment costs of the SBRSs are offset with one subsequent reuse of the system owing to lower costs for helpers and logistics.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint