Mehdi Bagheri-Gavkosh, Diego Panici, Alan Puttock, Tom Dauben, Richard E. Brazier
{"title":"水文分析和自然洪水管理策略的影响:系统综述","authors":"Mehdi Bagheri-Gavkosh, Diego Panici, Alan Puttock, Tom Dauben, 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":"{\"title\":\"Hydrological Analysis and Impacts of Natural Flood Management Strategies: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Mehdi Bagheri-Gavkosh, Diego Panici, Alan Puttock, Tom Dauben, 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}","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}
Hydrological Analysis and Impacts of Natural Flood Management Strategies: A Systematic Review
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.
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.