Abstract
Natural flood management (NFM), or working with natural processes, is a growing flood risk management method in the UK, Europe and worldwide. However, unlike the current dominant technical flood management, it lacks an established evidence base of flood risk parameters. This lack of evidence base can limit the uptake of NFM as a flood management method. This paper critically evaluates examples of NFM and wider relevant literature in order to identify NFM knowledge gaps and suggest how to overcome these. The UK is used as a microcosm of different environments for diverse examples. The sections include: land cover, land management, landscape interactions and trade-offs, evaluating the wider benefits of NFM and, finally, scaling from plot to catchment. This concludes in a suggested framework for a new approach to NFM research, which encompasses spatial scales, interactions and trade-offs of NFM and consistency of reporting results. Widening the NFM empirical evidence base should be seen as an opportunity for a new approach to flood research through exploring new habitats and new flood resilience methods.
Highlights
IntroductionMagnitude (Evans et al, 2006; O’Connell et al, 2007; Wheater and Evans, 2009). White (1942) was the first to state that a society becomes modern when it accepts that risk cannot be eliminated but is a probability that must be confronted
Flooding is the result of intricate relationships between weather and catchment characteristics
White (1942) was the first to state that a society becomes modern when it accepts that risk cannot be eliminated but is a probability that must be confronted. Such a statement is true of the shift in flood management within the UK and Europe, where since the 1990s it has been accepted that flood risk cannot be eradicated through defensive structures put in place through technical flood management (TFM)
Summary
Magnitude (Evans et al, 2006; O’Connell et al, 2007; Wheater and Evans, 2009). White (1942) was the first to state that a society becomes modern when it accepts that risk cannot be eliminated but is a probability that must be confronted. Flooding would be treated as a natural process that should be accepted and mitigated at all spatial scales within a catchment (Tunstall et al, 2004) This principle of acceptance and mitigation underpins natural flood management (NFM) approaches. TFM typically directs the flow of flood water away from the area at risk through structural defences such as flood walls, dams, raised embankments and levees. This approach has historically been employed in response to major floods, when there is public demand for an immediate response (Butler and Pidgeon, 2011). Such an evidence base is needed to enhance confidence in implementing NFM measures (Table 1)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
