4.5 Article

Differences in flood hazard projections in Europe - their causes and consequences for decision making

Journal

HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 1-14

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2016.1241398

Keywords

flood hazard; climate change; projections; science-policy interactions; decision making; Europe

Funding

  1. EU FP7 STAR-FLOOD (STrengthening And Redesigning European FLOOD risk practices: Towards appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements) Project
  2. European Commission [308364]
  3. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland [2749/7.PR/2013/2]
  4. FLORIST (FLOod RISk on the northern foothills of the Tatra Mountains) Project
  5. Switzerland through the Swiss Contribution to the enlarged European Union [153/2010]
  6. Environment Research & Technology Development Fund by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan [S-10, S-14]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper interprets differences in flood hazard projections over Europe and identifies likely sources of discrepancy. Further, it discusses potential implications of these differences for flood risk reduction and adaptation to climate change. The discrepancy in flood hazard projections raises caution, especially among decision makers in charge of water resources management, flood risk reduction, and climate change adaptation at regional to local scales. Because it is naive to expect availability of trustworthy quantitative projections of future flood hazard, in order to reduce flood risk one should focus attention on mapping of current and future risks and vulnerability hotspots and improve the situation there. Although an intercomparison of flood hazard projections is done in this paper and differences are identified and interpreted, it does not seems possible to recommend which large-scale studies may be considered most credible in particular areas of Europe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available