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

Lankenau, Lena; Massolle, Christopher; Koppe, Bärbel; Krull, Veronique

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-197-2020

Articles | Volume 20, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-197-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-197-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 1

Research article

|

17 Jan 2020

Research article |

| 17 Jan 2020

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

Lena Lankenau, Christopher Massolle, Bärbel Koppe, and Veronique Krull

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Jan 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 27 May 2019)

Status: closed (peer review stopped)

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review for nhess-2019-164', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 May 2019
- AC1: 'Reply to Referee #1 Comment', Lena Lankenau, 07 Jun 2019
RC2: 'review of "sandbag replacement systems - stability, functionality and handling"', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2019
AC2: 'Merging of nhess-2019-164 and nhes-2019-165', Lena Lankenau, 08 Oct 2019

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.