Hydrological Analysis and Impacts of Natural Flood Management Strategies: A Systematic Review

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Mehdi Bagheri-Gavkosh, Diego Panici, Alan Puttock, Tom Dauben, Richard E. Brazier
{"title":"Hydrological Analysis and Impacts of Natural Flood Management Strategies: A Systematic Review","authors":"Mehdi Bagheri-Gavkosh,&nbsp;Diego Panici,&nbsp;Alan Puttock,&nbsp;Tom Dauben,&nbsp;Richard E. Brazier","doi":"10.1111/jfr3.70112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Natural flood management strategies (NFMs) encompass a variety of measures implemented across catchments to mitigate flood risks while providing multiple benefits. In recent years, NFMs have gained increasing attention from researchers and policymakers. However, despite the growing body of research, there remains a lack of a critical review that quantitatively synthesises the reported performance of different NFMs by analysing their effects on key hydrological parameters. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of NFMs based on 145 peer-reviewed papers covering 216 case studies across 37 countries, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Our analysis moves from a descriptive overview of the evidence base to a novel, quantitative investigation of three critical themes: the characteristics of studied NFM schemes, the methodologies used for their assessment, and their quantitative hydrological performance and its influencing factors. Results indicate that 31% of the studies identified flood peak reduction as the most commonly targeted hydrological objective. A significant positive correlation was found between intervention diversity and intensity (Spearman's <i>ρ</i> = 0.53). Furthermore, our methodological analysis reveals a critical trade-off in the literature, with empirical monitoring typically used in small catchments over shorter durations, while modelling is used to assess a greater diversity of interventions at larger scales, with truly combined approaches being notably rare (11%). Notably, river and floodplain management (RFM) demonstrated higher effectiveness, achieving an average flood peak reduction of 30%, particularly in larger catchments. Bearing the often multi-faceted aims of NFMs in mind, this paper provides key suggestions for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":49294,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","volume":"18 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jfr3.70112","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Flood Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfr3.70112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Natural flood management strategies (NFMs) encompass a variety of measures implemented across catchments to mitigate flood risks while providing multiple benefits. In recent years, NFMs have gained increasing attention from researchers and policymakers. However, despite the growing body of research, there remains a lack of a critical review that quantitatively synthesises the reported performance of different NFMs by analysing their effects on key hydrological parameters. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of NFMs based on 145 peer-reviewed papers covering 216 case studies across 37 countries, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Our analysis moves from a descriptive overview of the evidence base to a novel, quantitative investigation of three critical themes: the characteristics of studied NFM schemes, the methodologies used for their assessment, and their quantitative hydrological performance and its influencing factors. Results indicate that 31% of the studies identified flood peak reduction as the most commonly targeted hydrological objective. A significant positive correlation was found between intervention diversity and intensity (Spearman's ρ = 0.53). Furthermore, our methodological analysis reveals a critical trade-off in the literature, with empirical monitoring typically used in small catchments over shorter durations, while modelling is used to assess a greater diversity of interventions at larger scales, with truly combined approaches being notably rare (11%). Notably, river and floodplain management (RFM) demonstrated higher effectiveness, achieving an average flood peak reduction of 30%, particularly in larger catchments. Bearing the often multi-faceted aims of NFMs in mind, this paper provides key suggestions for future research.

Abstract Image

水文分析和自然洪水管理策略的影响:系统综述
自然洪水管理策略(nfm)包括在集水区实施的各种措施,以减轻洪水风险,同时提供多种效益。近年来,nfm越来越受到研究者和决策者的关注。然而,尽管有越来越多的研究,仍然缺乏一项批判性的审查,通过分析不同nfm对关键水文参数的影响,定量地综合报道的不同nfm的性能。为了解决这一差距,我们根据系统审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目,根据37个国家的145篇同行评议论文,对nfm进行了系统审查。我们的分析从对证据基础的描述性概述转向对三个关键主题的新颖定量调查:所研究的NFM方案的特征,用于评估的方法,以及它们的定量水文性能及其影响因素。结果表明,31%的研究将洪峰降低确定为最常见的水文目标。干预多样性与干预强度呈正相关(Spearman’s ρ = 0.53)。此外,我们的方法分析揭示了文献中一个关键的权衡,经验监测通常用于较短时间内的小流域,而建模用于评估更大规模的干预措施的多样性,真正结合的方法非常罕见(11%)。值得注意的是,河流和洪泛区管理(RFM)显示出更高的效率,实现了平均30%的洪峰减少,特别是在较大的集水区。考虑到nfm的多方面目标,本文为未来的研究提供了关键建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Flood Risk Management
Journal of Flood Risk Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-WATER RESOURCES
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.30%
发文量
93
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Flood Risk Management provides an international platform for knowledge sharing in all areas related to flood risk. Its explicit aim is to disseminate ideas across the range of disciplines where flood related research is carried out and it provides content ranging from leading edge academic papers to applied content with the practitioner in mind. Readers and authors come from a wide background and include hydrologists, meteorologists, geographers, geomorphologists, conservationists, civil engineers, social scientists, policy makers, insurers and practitioners. They share an interest in managing the complex interactions between the many skills and disciplines that underpin the management of flood risk across the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信