Natural Flood Management
Beyond the evidence debate
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 8362000 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Thea Wingfield (0000-0002-7818-3455, University of Liverpool, autor correspondente), Nicole Macdonald (0000-0003-0350-7096, University of Liverpool), Kimberley Peters (0000-0001-7297-6334, University of Liverpool), Jack Spees (Ribble Rivers Trust), Karen Potter (0000-0003-4750-0056, The Open University) |
| Ano | 2019 |
| Volume | 51 |
| Fascículo | 4 |
| Páginas | 743-751 |
| Data de publicação | 2019-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Area (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0004-0894 • E-ISSN: 1475-4762 |
| Editora | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/area.12535 |
| OpenAlex | W2916067002 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 6 |
| Referências citadas | 34 |
Globally, flood frequency has increased over the last three decades. Natural Flood Management ( NFM ) is considered a progressive holistic flood management approach, using “natural” hydrological processes to slow and store water, delivering multiple benefits including water quality, biodiversity and amenity improvements. Although there are existing evaluations of NFM , they remain insufficient for drawing conclusions as to its effectiveness at catchment scales. However, without this evidence base and because of the domination of the natural sciences in the framing and research agenda, catchment‐wide interventions have not been implemented. In acknowledging the importance of understanding and data gaps (and attempts to fill them), this paper argues that there is an opportunity to deliver NFM more widely by capitalising on widespread interest in different land and water management sectors, supported by interdisciplinary policy‐relevant research. This paper illustrates how multi‐stakeholder collaborative partnership is suited to the dynamic complexity of NFM delivery. It is proposed that, through championing NFM delivery at catchment scales and the work of established catchment partnerships in England and Wales, there is the opportunity to more widely deliver NFM as an integrated component of flood risk management
Amenity · Business · Catchment area · Civil engineering · Drainage basin · Environmental planning · Environmental resource management · Flood myth · Framing (construction) · General partnership · Geography · Natural (archaeology) · Natural hazard · Natural resource · Natural resource management · Political science · Public relations · Stakeholder engagement · Engineering · Environmental Science · Flood Risk Assessment and Management · Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies · Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
The importance of nature in mediating social and psychological benefits associated with visits to freshwater blue space
Flood risk and climate change
The role of agri‐environment schemes in conservation and environmental management
Making Watershed Partnerships Work
Flooding, Pollution And Agriculture
Competing paradigms of flood management in the Scottish/English borderlands
Making water policy work in the United Kingdom
Policy integration for adaptive water governance
Factors Influencing the Frames and Approaches of Host Organizations for Collaborative Catchment Management in England
Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures
Green space, urbanity, and health
Sustainable flood management
Mitigating diffuse water pollution from agriculture using soft‐engineered runoff attenuation features
Getting it wrong first time
The impact of privatization on sustainability transitions
A Theory on Urban Resilience to Floods--A Basis for Alternative Planning Practices
Integrated water resource management and institutional integration
Geographies of UK flooding in 2013/4
| Obras citantes distintas | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 1 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Velocidade de citação | current |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 5 |