Academic publishing in disaster risk reduction: past, present, and future

Nowadays there are approximately 80 Anglophone journals that deal primarily with disaster risk reduction (DRR) and allied fields. This large array signals a sustained, if uneven, growth in DRR scholarship but also competition between the offerings of different publishers and institutions. The purpose of this article is first to summarise the development of academic publishing on DRR from its early beginnings to the present day. The paper then evaluates the current state of publishing in this field and discusses possible future trends. Next, it identifies some possible opportunities, challenges, expectations, and commitments for journal editors both within DRR and academia more broadly, including those that refer to changes in the use of terminology, the relentless increase in the number of papers submitted, the expansion and dangers of predatory journals, different peer review models, open access versus paywalls, citations and bibliography metrics, academic social networks, and copyright and distribution issues.

A restatement of the natural science evidence concerning catchment-based 'natural' flood management in the UK

Flooding is a very costly natural hazard in the UK and is expected to increase further under future climate change scenarios. Flood defences are commonly deployed to protect communities and property from flooding, but in recent years flood management policy has looked towards solutions that seek to mitigate flood risk at flood-prone sites through targeted interventions throughout the catchment, sometimes using techniques which involve working with natural processes. This paper describes a project to provide a succinct summary of the natural science evidence base concerning the effectiveness of catchment-based ‘natural’ flood management in the UK. The evidence summary is designed to be read by an informed but not technically specialist audience. Each evidence statement is placed into one of four categories describing the nature of the underlying information. The evidence summary forms the appendix to this paper and an annotated bibliography is provided in the electronic supplementary material.

The distributional consequences of future flood risk management in England and Wales

Much flood risk management (FRM) research has examined the predicted increased burden of risk from future climate change. In contrast, this paper examines the changing funding regime for FRM and arrangements for flood insurance in the UK today. These changes, after the 1998–2013 period of severe and repeated flooding, may considerably increase the burden for at-risk households, but affect different groups differently, raising the question as to how to manage the risk and who should pay for this risk management. We explore this through scenarios incorporating modelled changes both to government investment to reduce risk and to flood insurance. The key findings are that moving towards a more risk-based approach could move the burden hugely, particularly onto financially deprived at-risk households, such that both investment and insurance could be unaffordable or unavailable. As insurance becomes more risk based, deprived households are less likely to purchase cover, but higher costs might incentivise those at risk to adapt to the risk they face. In the end, society has to decide whether to promote more substantial incentives discouraging occupation of the floodplain, with the likely adverse consequences for those there who are financially deprived, or retain the current discouragement of self-help.

The distributional consequences of future flood risk management in England and Wales

Much flood risk management (FRM) research has examined the predicted increased burden of risk from future climate change. In contrast, this paper examines the changing funding regime for FRM and arrangements for flood insurance in the UK today. These changes, after the 1998–2013 period of severe and repeated flooding, may considerably increase the burden for at-risk households, but affect different groups differently, raising the question as to how to manage the risk and who should pay for this risk management. We explore this through scenarios incorporating modelled changes both to government investment to reduce risk and to flood insurance. The key findings are that moving towards a more risk-based approach could move the burden hugely, particularly onto financially deprived at-risk households, such that both investment and insurance could be unaffordable or unavailable. As insurance becomes more risk based, deprived households are less likely to purchase cover, but higher costs might incentivise those at risk to adapt to the risk they face. In the end, society has to decide whether to promote more substantial incentives discouraging occupation of the floodplain, with the likely adverse consequences for those there who are financially deprived, or retain the current discouragement of self-help.

Flood risk assessments at different spatial scales

Managing flood risk, i.e. both the hazard and the potential consequences, is an important aspect of adapting to global change and has gained much traction in recent decades. As a result, a priori flood risk assessments have become an important part of flood management practices. Many methodologies have been set up, ranging from global risk assessments for the world as a whole, to local assessments for a particular stretch of a river/coast or small town. Most assessment frameworks generally follow a similar approach, but there are also notable differences between assessments at different spatial scales. This review article examines these differences, for instance those related to the methodology, use of assessments and uncertainties. From this review, future research needs are identified in order to improve flood risk assessments at different scales. At global/continental scale, there is a clear need for harmonised information on flood defences to improve assessments. Furthermore, inclusions of indirect economic effects at the macro-/meso-scale would give a better indication of the total effects of catastrophic flooding. At the meso-/micro-scale, there is an urgent need to improve our understanding of the effects of flooding on critical infrastructures, given their importance to society, the economy, emergency management and reconstruction. An overarching theme at all scales is the validation of flood risk assessments, which is often limited. More detailed post-disaster information would allow for improved calibration, validation and thus performance of flood risk models. Lastly, the link between spatial scales also deserves attention, for instance up- or downscaling methodologies.

Adaptive flood risk management planning based on a comprehensive flood risk conceptualisation

Densely populated deltas are so vulnerable to sea level rise and climate change that they cannot wait for global mitigation to become effective. The Netherlands therefore puts huge efforts in adaptation research and planning for the future, for example through the national research programme Knowledge for Climate and the Delta Programme for the Twenty-first century. Flood risk is one of the key issues addressed in both programmes. Adaptive management planning should rely on a sound ex-ante policy analysis which encompasses a future outlook, establishing whether a policy transition is required, an assessment of alternative flood risk management strategies, and their planning in anticipation without running the risk of regret of doing too little too late or too much too early. This endeavour, addressed as adaptive delta management, calls for new approaches, especially because of uncertainties about long-term future developments. For flood risk management, it also entails reconsideration of the underlying principles and of the application of portfolios of technical measures versus spatial planning and other policy instruments. To this end, we first developed a conceptualisation of flood risk which reconciles the different approaches of flood defence management practice and spatial planning practice in order to bridge the gap between these previously detached fields. Secondly, we looked abroad in order to be better able to reflect critically on a possible Dutch bias which could have resulted from many centuries of experience of successful adaptation to increasing flood risk, but which may no longer be sustainable into the future. In this paper, we explain the multiple conceptualisation of flood risk and argue that explicitly distinguishing exposure determinants as a new concept may help to bridge the gap between engineers and spatial planners, wherefore we show how their different conceptualisations influence the framing of the adaptation challenge. Also, we identify what the Netherlands may learn from neighbouring countries with a different framing of the future flood risk challenge.