Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
NHESS
Articles | Volume 20, issue 1
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

Viewed

Total article views: 7,838 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
4,553 2,369 916 7,838 235 298
  • HTML: 4,553
  • PDF: 2,369
  • XML: 916
  • Total: 7,838
  • BibTeX: 235
  • EndNote: 298
Views and downloads (calculated since 27 May 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 May 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 7,838 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 7,282 with geography defined and 556 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved (final revised paper)

Latest update: 08 Sep 2026
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.
Read more
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint