My viewpoint, there is a distinction between risk management (I gave precisely before a definiton of risk management). It is coordinating, leading, organizing and planning applied to the special case of water hazards. The flood risk reduction is about start-up creations and running a businesses. In the way Dr. E.F. Schumacher thought about it. We are aware of centralization and their apostles. The literature is full of decentralized units of production coaches, gurus or mantras. Anyway, it is good to know that in modern times Dr. Schumacher advocated it -before all of them- He created the concept of people development by people, for people, and with people. That, in order to reconnect them with their own daily concerns of lives (especially the poor). Anyway, if a flood organization has to manage a full plan/program, I think, it has to cater people needs and use a strategy. At the moment I can only suggest what I read in the Financial Times (22 April 2010, section letters, p.10), which looks to me rather good (and to meet the sociologist Weick and his enactment concept), a sum-up of my thinking on flood hybrid organizations (this is mine). It would not be just pure application of Adam Smith theory of the market but added to it, the marketing aspect of Behavioural economy (allusion to the 4 Ps), bearing in mind the new globalization/internationalization trends (in space and time). Last, I wish (would I?) to get this flood hybrid organization looks rather right, and similar as shown by media attentions for recent islandic volcano eruptions. I suggest a coktail of precautionary measures between the no flight at all to protect people lives or business activities (similarly Dr Ahmadazai of Swedish enforcement talks, SIWI 2009, about the 100 km zone from a water features as a reasonable distance to avoid water pollutions) and related tests, ash concentrations, flight distance from the ash clouds, the elevation heights, also...Why flood communities wouldn't manage and reduce risks with these same principles and all the assets. Maybe organizations are doing it. Still, as I felt, it is missing the proactiveness, enactment and nowtime forecasts with water hazards (and for motives surely!) linked with the water poisoning. At the end, it is not the water rises that are dangerous (they are!) but all these unwanted materials like chemical, biological and physical hazards (Ref. WHO and WMO). Isn't? The real business is time for the flood engineering works and experts.

I am agreed with the assumption if concepts like Risks are math formula, for instance: Risk = Event X Probability X (Vulnerability). It is difficult to quantify in various disasters because too strict and/or to loose like the precautionary measures or the ALARP principles. It is fine.

Concepts are seperated worlds from the real world they just help to understand but don't change the realities. Just actions make it. In that sense I am emphasing the quality of answers and the team work through various inspections before, during and after the event. It is a continuous process of monitoring. Samples of scenario places where disasters occured with various responses, California, Kobe, Myamar, UK, Sudan, Bangladesh...