Articles | Volume 22, issue 11
Research article 01 Nov 2018
Research article | 01 Nov 2018
Challenges to implementing bottom-up flood risk decision analysis frameworks: how strong are social networks of flooding professionals?
James O. Knighton et al.
No articles found.
B. P. Buchanan, M. Fleming, R. L. Schneider, B. K. Richards, J. Archibald, Z. Qiu, and M. T. Walter
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3279–3299,
S. W. Lyon, M. T. Walter, E. J. Jantze, and J. A. Archibald
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 269–279,
Related subject area
Subject: Water Resources Management | Techniques and Approaches: Theory developmentQuantifying the impacts of compound extremes on agricultureComparison of published palaeoclimate records suitable for reconstructing annual to sub-decadal hydroclimatic variability in eastern Australia: implications for water resource management and planningUnraveling intractable water conflicts: the entanglement of science and politics in decision-making on large hydraulic infrastructureA Water-Energy-Food Nexus approach for conducting trade-off analysis: Morocco's phosphate industry in the Khouribga regionA watershed classification approach that looks beyond hydrology: application to a semi-arid, agricultural region in CanadaRole-play simulations as an aid to achieve complex learning outcomes in hydrological scienceUsing a coupled agent-based modeling approach to analyze the role of risk perception in water management decisionsGeostatistical interpolation by quantile krigingFlooded by jargon: how the interpretation of water-related terms differs between hydrology experts and the general audienceSocio-hydrological spaces in the Jamuna River floodplain in BangladeshAn improved method for calculating the regional crop water footprint based on a hydrological process analysisHow downstream sub-basins depend on upstream inflows to avoid scarcity: typology and global analysis of transboundary riversAn alternative approach for socio-hydrology: case study researchHESS Opinions: A conceptual framework for assessing socio-hydrological resilience under changeSocio-hydrological perspectives of the co-evolution of humans and groundwater in Cangzhou, North China PlainTowards systematic planning of small-scale hydrological intervention-based researchGeoscience on television: a review of science communication literature in the context of geosciencesA "mental models" approach to the communication of subsurface hydrology and hazardsReview and classification of indicators of green water availability and scarcitySocio-hydrological water balance for water allocation between human and environmental purposes in catchmentsLong-term monitoring of nitrate transport to drainage from three agricultural clayey till fieldsComplex network theory, streamflow, and hydrometric monitoring system designHydrological drought types in cold climates: quantitative analysis of causing factors and qualitative survey of impactsLinked hydrologic and social systems that support resilience of traditional irrigation communitiesAssessing blue and green water utilisation in wheat production of China from the perspectives of water footprint and total water useA new framework for resolving conflicts over transboundary rivers using bankruptcy methodsQuantifying the human impact on water resources: a critical review of the water footprint conceptEndogenous change: on cooperation and water availability in two ancient societiesSocio-hydrology and the science–policy interface: a case study of the Saskatchewan River basinRelationships between environmental governance and water quality in a growing metropolitan area of the Pacific Northwest, USAA journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step – human agency, hydrological processes and time in socio-hydrologySocio-hydrologic perspectives of the co-evolution of humans and water in the Tarim River basin, Western China: the Taiji–Tire modelActing, predicting and intervening in a socio-hydrological worldEvolving water science in the AnthropoceneHard paths, soft paths or no paths? Cross-cultural perceptions of water solutionsReconstructing the duty of water: a study of emergent norms in socio-hydrologyWater consumption from hydropower plants – review of published estimates and an assessment of the conceptWater Accounting Plus (WA+) – a water accounting procedure for complex river basins based on satellite measurementsCyanobacterial and microcystins dynamics following the application of hydrogen peroxide to waste stabilisation pondsA regional and multi-faceted approach to postgraduate water education – the WaterNet experience in Southern AfricaReframing hydrology education to solve coupled human and environmental problemsExperiences from online and classroom education in hydroinformaticsEnhancing capacities of riparian professionals to address and resolve transboundary issues in international river basins: experiences from the Lower Mekong River BasinAssessing ecological land use and water demand of river systems: a case study in Luanhe River, North ChinaIrrigania – a web-based game about sharing water resourcesCompetence formation and post-graduate education in the public water sector in IndonesiaA climate-flood link for the lower Mekong RiverExperiences of using mobile technologies and virtual field tours in Physical Geography: implications for hydrology educationThe Indus basin in the framework of current and future water resources managementAssessing water resources adaptive capacity to climate change impacts in the Pacific Northwest Region of North America
Iman Haqiqi, Danielle S. Grogan, Thomas W. Hertel, and Wolfram Schlenker
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 551–564,Short summary
This study combines a fine-scale weather product with outputs of a hydrological model to construct functional metrics of individual and compound hydroclimatic extremes for agriculture. Then, a yield response function is estimated with individual and compound metrics focusing on corn in the United States during the 1981–2015 period. The findings suggest that metrics of compound hydroclimatic extremes are better predictors of corn yield variations than metrics of individual extremes.
Anna L. Flack, Anthony S. Kiem, Tessa R. Vance, Carly R. Tozer, and Jason L. Roberts
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5699–5712,Short summary
Palaeoclimate information was analysed for eastern Australia to determine when (and where) there was agreement about the timing of wet and dry epochs in the pre-instrumental period (1000–1899). The results show that instrumental records (~1900–present) underestimate the full range of rainfall variability that has occurred. When coupled with projected impacts of climate change and growing demands, these results highlight major challenges for water resource management and infrastructure.
Jonatan Godinez-Madrigal, Nora Van Cauwenbergh, and Pieter van der Zaag
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4903–4921,Short summary
Our research studies whether science depoliticizes water conflicts or instead conflicts politicize science–policy processes. We analyze a water conflict due to the development of large infrastructure. We interviewed key actors in the conflict and replicated the results of water resources models developed to solve the conflict. We found that knowledge produced in isolation has no positive effect in transforming the conflict; instead, its potential could be enhanced if produced collaboratively.
Sang-Hyun Lee, Amjad T. Assi, Bassel Daher, Fatima E. Mengoub, and Rabi H. Mohtar
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4727–4741,Short summary
Proper water availability for the right place and time in a changing climate requires analysis of complex scientific, technical, socioeconomic, regulatory, and political issues. A Water-Energy-Food Nexus Phosphate (WEF-P) Tool, based on integrating supply chain processes, transportation, and water–energy footprints could assess the various scenarios to offer an effective means of ensuring sustainable management of limited resources to both agricultural areas and the phosphate industry.
Jared D. Wolfe, Kevin R. Shook, Chris Spence, and Colin J. Whitfield
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 3945–3967,Short summary
Watershed classification can identify regions expected to respond similarly to disturbance. Methods should extend beyond hydrology to include other environmental questions, such as ecology and water quality. We developed a classification for the Canadian Prairie and identified seven classes defined by watershed characteristics, including elevation, climate, wetland density, and surficial geology. Results provide a basis for evaluating watershed response to land management and climate condition.
Arvid Bring and Steve W. Lyon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2369–2378,Short summary
Hydrology education strives to teach students both quantitative ability and complex professional skills. Our research shows that role-play simulations are useful to make students able to integrate various analytical skills in complicated settings while not interfering with traditional teaching that fosters their ability to solve mathematical problems. Despite this there are several potential challenging areas in using role-plays, and we therefore suggest ways around these potential roadblocks.
Jin-Young Hyun, Shih-Yu Huang, Yi-Chen Ethan Yang, Vincent Tidwell, and Jordan Macknick
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2261–2278,Short summary
This study applies a two-way coupled agent-based model (ABM) with a river-reservoir management model (RiverWare) to analyze the role of risk perception in water management decisions using the Bayesian inference mapping joined with the cost–loss model. The calibration results capture the dynamics of historical irrigated area and streamflow changes and suggest that the proposed framework improves the representation of human decision-making processes compared to conventional rule-based ABMs.
Henning Lebrenz and András Bárdossy
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1633–1648,Short summary
Many variables, e.g., in hydrology, geology, and social sciences, are only observed at a few distinct measurement locations, and their actual distribution in the entire space remains unknown. We introduce the new geostatistical interpolation method of
quantile kriging, providing an improved estimator and associated uncertainty. It can also host variables, which would not fulfill the implicit presumptions of the traditional geostatistical interpolation methods.
Gemma J. Venhuizen, Rolf Hut, Casper Albers, Cathelijne R. Stoof, and Ionica Smeets
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 393–403,Short summary
Do experts attach the same meaning as laypeople to terms often used in hydrology such as "river", "flooding" and "downstream"? In this study a survey was completed by 34 experts and 119 laypeople to answer this question. We found that there are some profound differences between experts and laypeople: words like "river" and "river basin" turn out to have a different interpretation between the two groups. However, when using pictures there is much more agreement between the groups.
Md Ruknul Ferdous, Anna Wesselink, Luigia Brandimarte, Kymo Slager, Margreet Zwarteveen, and Giuliano Di Baldassarre
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5159–5173,Short summary
Socio-hydrological space (SHS) is a concept that enriches the study of socio-hydrology because it helps understand the detailed human–water interactions in a specific location. The concept suggests that the interactions between society and water are place-bound because of differences in social processes and river dynamics. This would be useful for developing interventions under disaster management, but also other development goals. SHS provides a new way of looking at socio-hydrological systems.
Xiao-Bo Luan, Ya-Li Yin, Pu-Te Wu, Shi-Kun Sun, Yu-Bao Wang, Xue-Rui Gao, and Jing Liu
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5111–5123,Short summary
At present, the water footprint calculated by the quantitative method of crop production water footprint is only a field-scale water footprint, which does not contain all the water consumption of the crop growth process, so its calculated crop production water footprint is incomplete. In this study, the hydrological model SWAT was used to analyze the real water consumption in the course of crop growth, so that the actual water consumption of the crops could be more accurately reflected.
Hafsa Ahmed Munia, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Naho Mirumachi, Yoshihide Wada, and Matti Kummu
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2795–2809,Short summary
An analytical framework is developed drawing on ideas of regime shifts from resilience literature to understand the transition between cases where water scarcity is or is not experienced depending on whether water from upstream is or is not available. The analysis shows 386 million people dependent on upstream water to avoid possible stress and 306 million people dependent on upstream water to avoid possible shortage. This provides insights into implications for negotiations between sub-basins.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 317–329,Short summary
This paper argues for an alternative approach for socio‒hydrology: detailed case study research. Detailed case study research can increase understanding of how society interacts with hydrology, offers more levers for management than coupled modelling, and facilitates interdisciplinary cooperation. The paper presents a case study of the Dommel Basin in the Netherlands and Belgium and compares this with a published model of the Kissimmee Basin in Florida.
Feng Mao, Julian Clark, Timothy Karpouzoglou, Art Dewulf, Wouter Buytaert, and David Hannah
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3655–3670,Short summary
The paper aims to propose a conceptual framework that supports nuanced understanding and analytical assessment of resilience in socio-hydrological contexts. We identify three framings of resilience for different human–water couplings, which have distinct application fields and are used for different water management challenges. To assess and improve socio-hydrological resilience in each type, we introduce a
resilience canvasas a heuristic tool to design bespoke management strategies.
Songjun Han, Fuqiang Tian, Ye Liu, and Xianhui Duan
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3619–3633,Short summary
The history of the co-evolution of the coupled human–groundwater system in Cangzhou (a region with the most serious depression cone in the North China Plain) is analyzed with a particular focus on how the groundwater crisis unfolded and how people attempted to settle the crisis. The evolution of the system was substantially impacted by two droughts. Further restoration of groundwater environment could be anticipated, but the occurrence of drought still remains an undetermined external forcing.
Kharis Erasta Reza Pramana and Maurits Willem Ertsen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4093–4115,Short summary
The effects of human actions in small-scale water development initiatives and the associated hydrological research activities are basically unspecified. We argue that more explicit attention helps to design more appropriate answers to the challenges faced in field studies. A more systematic approach is proposed that would be useful when designing field projects: two sets of questions on (1) dealing with surprises and (2) cost–benefits of data gathering.
Rolf Hut, Anne M. Land-Zandstra, Ionica Smeets, and Cathelijne R. Stoof
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2507–2518,Short summary
To help geo-scientists prepare for TV appearances, we review the scientific literature on effective science communication related to TV. We identify six main themes: scientist motivation, target audience, narratives and storytelling, jargon and information transfer, relationship between scientists and journalists, and stereotypes of scientists on TV. We provide a detailed case study as illustration for each theme.
Hazel Gibson, Iain S. Stewart, Sabine Pahl, and Alison Stokes
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1737–1749,Short summary
This paper provides empirical evidence for the value of using a psychology-based approach to communication of hydrology and hazards. It demonstrates the use of the "mental models" approach to risk assessment used in a regional geoscience context to explore the conceptions of the geological subsurface between experts and non-experts, and how that impacts on communication.
J. F. Schyns, A. Y. Hoekstra, and M. J. Booij
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4581–4608,Short summary
The paper draws attention to the fact that green water (soil moisture returning to the atmosphere through evaporation) is a scarce resource, because its availability is limited and there are competing demands for green water. Around 80 indicators of green water availability and scarcity are reviewed and classified based on their scope and purpose of measurement. This is useful in order to properly include limitations in green water availability in water scarcity assessments.
S. Zhou, Y. Huang, Y. Wei, and G. Wang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3715–3726,
V. Ernstsen, P. Olsen, and A. E. Rosenbom
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3475–3488,
M. J. Halverson and S. W. Fleming
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3301–3318,
A. F. Van Loon, S. W. Ploum, J. Parajka, A. K. Fleig, E. Garnier, G. Laaha, and H. A. J. Van Lanen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1993–2016,Short summary
Hydrological drought types in cold climates have complex causing factors and impacts. In Austria and Norway, a lack of snowmelt is mainly related to below-normal winter precipitation, and a lack of glaciermelt is mainly related to below-normal summer temperature. These and other hydrological drought types impacted hydropower production, water supply, and agriculture in Europe and the US in the recent and far past. For selected drought events in Norway impacts could be coupled to causing factors.
A. Fernald, S. Guldan, K. Boykin, A. Cibils, M. Gonzales, B. Hurd, S. Lopez, C. Ochoa, M. Ortiz, J. Rivera, S. Rodriguez, and C. Steele
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 293–307,
X. C. Cao, P. T. Wu, Y. B. Wang, and X. N. Zhao
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3165–3178,
K. Madani, M. Zarezadeh, and S. Morid
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3055–3068,
J. Chenoweth, M. Hadjikakou, and C. Zoumides
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2325–2342,
S. Pande and M. Ertsen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1745–1760,
P. Gober and H. S. Wheater
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1413–1422,
H. Chang, P. Thiers, N. R. Netusil, J. A. Yeakley, G. Rollwagen-Bollens, S. M. Bollens, and S. Singh
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1383–1395,
M. W. Ertsen, J. T. Murphy, L. E. Purdue, and T. Zhu
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1369–1382,
Y. Liu, F. Tian, H. Hu, and M. Sivapalan
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1289–1303,
S. N. Lane
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 927–952,
H. H. G. Savenije, A. Y. Hoekstra, and P. van der Zaag
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 319–332,
A. Wutich, A. C. White, D. D. White, K. L. Larson, A. Brewis, and C. Roberts
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 109–120,
J. L. Jr. Wescoat
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4759–4768,
T. H. Bakken, Å. Killingtveit, K. Engeland, K. Alfredsen, and A. Harby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3983–4000,
P. Karimi, W. G. M. Bastiaanssen, and D. Molden
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2459–2472,
D. J. Barrington, A. Ghadouani, and G. N. Ivey
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2097–2105,
L. Jonker, P. van der Zaag, B. Gumbo, J. Rockström, D. Love, and H. H. G. Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 4225–4232,
E. G. King, F. C. O'Donnell, and K. K. Caylor
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 4023–4031,
I. Popescu, A. Jonoski, and B. Bhattacharya
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3935–3944,
W. Douven, M. L. Mul, B. Fernández-Álvarez, S. Lam Hung, N. Bakker, G. Radosevich, and P. van der Zaag
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3183–3197,
D. H. Yan, G. Wang, H. Wang, and T. L. Qin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2469–2483,
J. Seibert and M. J. P. Vis
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2523–2530,
J. M. Kaspersma, G. J. Alaerts, and J. H. Slinger
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2379–2392,
J. M. Delgado, B. Merz, and H. Apel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1533–1541,
D. G. Kingston, W. J. Eastwood, P. I. Jones, R. Johnson, S. Marshall, and D. M. Hannah
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1281–1286,
A. N. Laghari, D. Vanham, and W. Rauch
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1063–1083,
A. F. Hamlet
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1427–1443,
Birkholz, S., Muro, M., Jeffrey, P., and Smith, H. M.: Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management, Sci. Total Environ., 478, 12–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.061, 2014.
Blair, P. and Buytaert, W.: Socio-hydrological modelling: a review asking “why, what and how?”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 443–478, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-443-2016, 2016.
Bracken, L. J., Oughton, E. A., Donaldson, A., Cook, B., Forrester, J., Spray, C., Cinderby, S., Passmore, D., and Bissett, N.: Flood risk management, an approach to managing cross-border hazards, Nat. Hazards, 82, 217–240, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2284-2, 2016.
Brown, C., Ghile, Y., Laverty, M., and Li, K.: Decision scaling: Linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector, Water Resour. Res., 48, 2012.
Brown, J. D. and Damery, S. L.: Managing flood risk in the UK: towards an integration of social and technical perspectives, T. I. Brit. Geogr., 27, 412–426, 2002.
Burby, R. J.: Flood insurance and floodplain management: the US experience, Global Environ. Chang., 3, 111–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2867(02)00003-7, 2001.
Butler, C. and Pidgeon, N.: From “flood defence” to “flood risk management”: exploring governance, responsibility, and blame, Environ. Plann. C, 29, 533–547, https://doi.org/10.1068/c09181j, 2011.
Clarvis, M. H. and Engle, N. L.: Adaptive capacity of water governance arrangements: a comparative study of barriers and opportunities in Swiss and US states, Reg. Environ. Change, 15, 517–527, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0547-y, 2015.
Collenteur, R. A., de Moel, H., Jongman, B., and Di Baldassarre, G.: The failed-levee effect: Do societies learn from flood disasters?, Nat. Hazards, 76, 373–388, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1496-6, 2015.
de Brito, M. M. and Evers, M.: Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: a survey of the current state of the art, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1019–1033, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016, 2016.
DeGaetano, A. T.: Time-dependent changes in extreme-precipitation return-period amounts in the continental United States, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 48, 2086–2099, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAMC2179.1, 2009.
Di Baldassarre, G., Viglione, A., Carr, G., Kuil, L., Salinas, J. L., and Blöschl, G.: Socio-hydrology: conceptualising human-flood interactions, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3295–3303, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3295-2013, 2013.
Di Baldassarre, G., Viglione, A., Carr, G., Kuil, L., Yan, K., Brandimarte, L., and Blöschl, G.: Debates–Perspectives on socio-hydrology: Capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes, Water Resour. Res., 51, 4770–4781, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016416, 2015.
Di Baldassarre, G., Brandimarte, L., and Beven, K.: The seventh facet of uncertainty: wrong assumptions, unknowns and surprises in the dynamics of human–water systems, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 61, 1748–1758, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1091460, 2016.
Downton, M. W., Morss, R. E., Wilhelmi, O. V., Gruntfest, E., and Higgins, M. L.: Interactions between scientific uncertainty and flood management decisions: Two case studies in Colorado, Global Environ. Chang., 6, 134–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazards.2006.05.003, 2005.
Easton, Z. M., Gérard-Marchant, P., Walter, M. T., Petrovic, A. M., and Steenhuis, T. S.: Hydrologic assessment of an urban variable source watershed in the northeast United States, Water Resour. Res., 43, W03413, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005076, 2007.
Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Roth, D., and Winnubst, M.: Stakeholder initiatives in flood risk management: exploring the role and impact of bottom-up initiatives in three “Room for the River” projects in the Netherlands, J. Environ. Plann. Man., 60, 47–66, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1140025, 2017.
Elliott, R. and Rush, E: Stormy Waters: The Fight Over New York City's Flood Lines, Harper's Monthly, 2017.
Evers, M., Almoradie, A., and de Brito, M. M.: Enhancing Flood Resilience Through Collaborative Modelling and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Urban Disaster Resilience and Security, 221–236, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68606-6_14, 2018.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Flood Risk and Insurance: Know the Facts, available at: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1435760601581-d4712885b8b40afcaab671d02333ff2a/FS_FloodRisk_nInsuranceKnowtheFacts_May2015.pdf (last access: 23 October 2018), 2015.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): National Flood Hazard Layer, available at: https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-hazard-layer-nfhl (last access: 23 October 2018), 2018.
Few, R.: Flooding, vulnerability and coping strategies: local responses to a global threat, Prog. Dev. Stud., 3, 43–58, https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993403ps049ra, 2003.
Fry, J., Xian, G., Jin, S., Dewitz, J., Homer, C., Yang, L., Barnes, C., Herold, N., and Wickham, J.: Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States, Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 77, 858–864, 2011.
Gober, P. and Wheater, H. S.: Debates – Perspectives on socio-hydrology: Modeling flood risk as a public policy problem, Water Resour. Res., 51, 4782–4788, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016945, 2015.
Haer, T., Botzen, W. W., and Aerts, J. C.: The effectiveness of flood risk communication strategies and the influence of social networks – Insights from an agent-based model, Environmental Science and Policy, 60, 44–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.006, 2016.
Hamilton, L. C., Wake, C. P., Hartter, J., Safford, T. G., and Puchlopek, A. J.: Flood realities, perceptions and the depth of divisions on climate, Sociology, 50, 913–933, https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516648547, 2016.
Harries, T.: Feeling secure or being secure? Why it can seem better not to protect yourself against a natural hazard, Health Risk Soc., 10, 479–490, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570802381162, 2008.
Harries, T. and Penning-Rowsell, E.: Victim pressure, institutional inertia and climate change adaptation: The case of flood risk, Global Environ. Chang., 21, 188–197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.002, 2011.
Hermanowicz, J. C.: The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed, Qual. Sociol., 25, 479–499, 2002.
Hirabayashi, Y, Mahendran, R., Koirala, S., Konoshima, L., Yamazaki, D., Watanabe, S., Kim, H., and Kanae, S.: Global flood risk under climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 816–821, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1911, 2013.
Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B., Schlüter, M., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., Koskova, R., Dickens, C., and Nabide Kiti, I.: Adaptive water management and policy learning in a changing climate: a formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia, Environ. Policy Gov., 21, 145–163, 2011.
Ithaca Times: UPDATE: Flooding reported in Ithaca, available at: http://www.ithaca.com/news/update-flooding-reported-in-ithaca/article_8582a8fc-f712-11e7-bf66-0fdcdebf79f7.html, last access: 23 October 2018.
Ivancic, T. J. and Shaw, S. B.: Examining why trends in very heavy precipitation should not be mistaken for trends in very high river discharge, Climatic Change, 133, 681–693, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1476-1, 2015.
Johnson, H.: The New York State Flood of July 1935. Water-Supply Paper 773-E, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1936.
Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., and Lempert, R. J.: Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change, Environ. Modell. Softw., 42, 55–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.12.007, 2013.
Knighton, J.: Tompkins County Flood Expert Survey, HydroShare, https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.93dbbcda406349e691030e92c882fb3a, 2018.
Knighton, J., White, E., Lennon, E., and Rajan, R.: Development of probability distributions for urban hydrologic model parameters and a Monte Carlo analysis of model sensitivity, Hydrol. Process., 28, 5131–5139, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10009, 2014.
Knighton, J., Steinschneider, S., and Walter, M. T.: A Vulnerability-Based, Bottom-up Assessment of Future Riverine Flood Risk Using a Modified Peaks-Over-Threshold Approach and a Physically Based Hydrologic Model, Water Resour. Res., 53, 10043–10064, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021036, 2017.
Knighton, J. O. and Walter, M. T.: Critical rainfall statistics for predicting watershed flood responses: rethinking the design storm concept, Hydrol. Process., 30, 3788–3803, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10888, 2016.
Knighton, J. O., DeGaetano, A., and Walter, M. T.: Hydrologic State Influence on Riverine Flood Discharge for a Small Temperate Watershed (Fall Creek, United States): Negative Feedbacks on the Effects of Climate Change, J. Hydrometeorol., 18, 431–449, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0164.1, 2017.
Lane, S. N., Landström, C., and Whatmore, S. J.: Imagining flood futures: risk assessment and management in practice, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 369, 1784–1806, 2011.
Leong, C. and Howlett, M.: On credit and blame: disentangling the motivations of public policy decision-making behaviour, Policy Sci., 50, 599–618, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9290-4, 2017.
Lo, A. Y.: The role of social norms in climate adaptation: Mediating risk perception and flood insurance purchase, Global Environ. Chang., 23, 1249–1257, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.019, 2013.
Lo, A. Y.: Negative income effect on perception of long-term environmental risk, Ecol. Econ., 107, 51–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.009, 2014.
Lorenzoni, I. and Pidgeon, N. F.: Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives, Climatic Change, 77, 73–95, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z, 2006.
Lupton, D.: Risk and emotion: towards an alternative theoretical perspective, Health Risk Soc., 15, 634–647, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2013.848847, 2013.
Lyles, W., Berke, P., and Smith, G.: A comparison of local hazard mitigation plan quality in six states, USA, Landscape Urban Plan., 122, 89–99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.010, 2014.
Marjerison, R. D., Walter, M. T., Sullivan, P. J., and Colucci, S. J.: Does Population Affect the Location of Flash Flood Reports?, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 55, 1953–1963, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-15-0329.1, 2016.
Masuda, J. R. and Garvin, T.: Place, culture, and the social amplification of risk, Risk Anal., 26, 437–454, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00749.x, 2006.
Mathias, S. A., McIntyre, N., and Oughton, R. H.: A study of non-linearity in rainfall-runoff response using 120 UK catchments, J. Hydrol., 540, 423–436, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.06.039, 2016.
Measham, T. G., Preston, B. L., Smith, T. F., Brooke, C., Gorddard, R., Withycombe, G., and Morrison, C.: Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: barriers and challenges, Mitig. Adaptat. Strat. Gl., 16, 889–909, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9301-2, 2011.
Merz, B., Aerts, J., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Baldi, M., Becker, A., Bichet, A., Blöschl, G., Bouwer, L. M., Brauer, A., Cioffi, F., Delgado, J. M., Gocht, M., Guzzetti, F., Harrigan, S., Hirschboeck, K., Kilsby, C., Kron, W., Kwon, H.-H., Lall, U., Merz, R., Nissen, K., Salvatti, P., Swierczynski, T., Ulbrich, U., Viglione, A., Ward, P. J., Weiler, M., Wilhelm, B., and Nied, M.: Floods and climate: emerging perspectives for flood risk assessment and management, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 1921–1942, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-1921-2014, 2014.
Molotch, H.: Growth machine links: Up, down, and across, The urban growth machine: Critical perspectives two decades later, SUNY series in Urban Planning, 247–265, 1999.
Morss, R. E., Wilhelmi, O. V., Downton, M. W., and Gruntfest, E.: Flood risk, uncertainty, and scientific information for decision making: lessons from an interdisciplinary project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 1593–1601, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-11-1593, 2005.
Næss, L. O., Bang, G., Eriksen, S., and Vevatne, J.: Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway, Global Environ. Change, 15, 125–138, 2005.
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC): Land-Based Station Data, available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-basedstation-data, last access: 23 October 2018.
Ning, L., Riddle, E. E., and Bradley, R. S.: Projected changes in climate extremes over the northeastern United States, J. Climate, 28, 3289–3310, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00150.1, 2015.
Norgaard, K. M.: Living in denial: Climate change, emotions, and everyday life, MIT Press, 2011.
Obama, B.: Establishing a federal flood risk management standard and a process for further soliciting and considering stakeholder input (United States Executive Order 13690), Washington, DC, The White House, available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/executive-order-establishing-federal-flood-risk-management-standard-and- (last access: 23 October 2018), 2015.
Ogunbode, C. A., Liu, Y., and Tausch, N.: The moderating role of political affiliation in the link between flooding experience and preparedness to reduce energy use, Climatic Change, 145, 445–458, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2089-7, 2017.
Pahl-Wostl, C.: A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes, Global Environ. Chang., 19, 354–365, 2009.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B., and Knieper, C.: Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the management and transition framework, Environ. Sci. Policy, 13, 571–581, 2010.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Becker, G., Knieper, C., and Sendzimir, J.: How multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: a comparative case study analysis on flood management, Ecol. Soc., 18, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05779-180458, 2013.
Pappenberger, F., Stephens, E., Thielen, J., Salamon, P., Demeritt, D., Van Andel, S. J., Wetterhall, F., and Alfieri, L.: Visualizing probabilistic flood forecast information: expert preferences and perceptions of best practice in uncertainty communication, Hydrol. Process., 27, 132–146, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9253, 2013.
Percia, S., Pavlovic, S., Laurent, M., Trypaluk, C., Unruh, D., Martin, D., and Wilhite, O.: Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the United States, 10(2.0), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015.
Pielke Sr., Roger, A., Wilby, R., Niyogi, D., Hossain, F., Dairuku, K., Adegoke, J., Kallos, G., Seastedt, T., and Suding, K.: Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective, Extreme events and natural hazards: The complexity perspective, Geophys. Monogr., 196, 345–359: https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GM001086, 2012.
Plate, E. J.: Flood risk and flood management, J. Hydrol., 267, 2–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00135-X, 2002.
Plummer, R., Baird, J., Bullock, R., Dzyundzyak, A., Dupont, D., Gerger Swartling, Å., Johannessen, Å., Huitema, D., Lyth, A., de Lourdes Melo Zurita, M., and Munaretto, S.: Flood Governance: A multiple country comparison of stakeholder perceptions and aspirations, Environ. Policy Gov., 28, 67–81, https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1796, 2018.
Prudhomme, C., Wilby, R. L., Crooks, S., Kay, A. L., and Reynard, N. S.: Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: application to flood risk, J. Hydrol., 390, 198–209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.043, 2010.
Rauken, T., Mydske, P. K., and Winsvold, M.: Mainstreaming climate change adaptation at the local level, Local Environment, 20, 408–423, https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.880412, 2015.
Roth, D. M. and Weather Prediction Center: Tropical cyclone rainfall in the Mid-Atlantic United States, Tropical cyclone rainfall point maxima, Silver Spring, MD, United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service, 2012.
Scherer, C. W. and Cho, H.: A social network contagion theory of risk perception, Risk Anal., 23, 261–267, https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00306, 2003.
Schoof, J. T. and Robeson, S. M.: Projecting changes in regional temperature and precipitation extremes in the United States, Weather and Climate Extremes, 11, 28–40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.09.004, 2016.
Serra-Llobet, A., Conrad, E., and Schaefer, K.: Integrated water resource and flood risk management: comparing the US and the EU, E3S Web of Conferences, 7, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160720006, 2016.
Shepard, S., Boudet, H., Zanocco, C. M., Cramer, L. A., and Tilt, B.: Community climate change beliefs, awareness, and actions in the wake of the September 2013 flooding in Boulder County, Colorado, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 8, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-018-0479-4, 2018.
Singh, G. G., Tam, J., Sisk, T. D., Klain, S. C., Mach, M. E., Martone, R. G., and Chan, K.: A more social science: barriers and incentives for scientists engaging in policy, Front. Ecol. Environ., 12, 161–166, https://doi.org/10.1890/130011, 2014.
Slater, L. J. and Villarini, G.: Recent trends in US flood risk, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12428–12436, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071199, 2016.
Tompkins County (TC): Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan: 2013 Update, available at: http://tompkinscountyny.gov/files2/planning/HazMitRpt/Tompkins County HMP Final Draft - July 2013 - ALL.pdf (last access: 23 October 2018), 2013.
Tompkins County (TC): Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan: Adaptation Chapter, available at: http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files2/planning/ComprehensivePlan/Adaptation.pdf (last access: 23 October 2018), 2015.
Tompkins County (TC): Tompkins County Contact Information for All Legislators, available at: http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/legislature/legislators, last access: 23 October 2018.
Trenberth, K. E.: Changes in precipitation with climate change, Clim. Res., 47, 123–138, 2011.
Troy, T. J., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., and Evans, T. P.: Debates – Perspectives on socio-hydrology: Socio-hydrologic modeling: Tradeoffs, hypothesis testing, and validation, Water Resour. Res., 51, 4806–4814, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017046, 2015.
United States Census: QuickFacts Tompkins County, New York, available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/tompkinscountynewyork/PST045216 (last access: 23 October 2018), 2017.
United States Geological Survey (USGS): USGS 04233300 Fall Creek Near Ithaca NY, available at: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?04234000, last access: 23 October 2018.
Vinh Hung, H., Shaw, R., and Kobayashi, M.: Flood risk management for the RUA of Hanoi: Importance of community perception of catastrophic flood risk in disaster risk planning, Disaster Prev. Manag., 16, 245–258, https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560710739568, 2007.
Vogel, B. and Henstra, D.: Studying local climate adaptation: A heuristic research framework for comparative policy analysis, Global Environ. Chang., 31, 110–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.001, 2015.
Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., and Kuhlicke, C.: The risk perception paradox–implications for governance and communication of natural hazards, Risk Anal., 33, 1049–1065, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x, 2013.
Weinkle, J. and Pielke Jr., R.: The Truthiness about Hurricane Catastrophe Models, Sci., Technol. Hum. Val., 42, 547–576, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916671201, 2017.
Wheater, H. and Evans, E.: Land use, water management and future flood risk, Land Use Policy, 26, S251–S264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.019, 2009.
Wing, O. E., Bates, P. D., Smith, A. M., Sampson, C. C., Johnson, K. A., Fargione, J., and Morefield, P.: Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United States, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 034023, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac65, 2018.
Wobus, C., Gutmann, E., Jones, R., Rissing, M., Mizukami, N., Lorie, M., Mahoney, H., Wood, A. W., Mills, D., and Martinich, J.: Climate change impacts on flood risk and asset damages within mapped 100-year floodplains of the contiguous United States, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2199–2211, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-2199-2017, 2017.
Wood, M., Kovacs, D., Bostrom, A., Bridges, T., and Linkov, I.: Flood risk management: US Army Corps of Engineers and layperson perceptions, Risk Anal., 32, 1349–1368, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01832.x, 2012.
Zevenbergen, C., Veerbeek, W., Gersonius, B., and Van Herk, S.: Challenges in urban flood management: travelling across spatial and temporal scales, J. Flood Risk Manag., 1, 81–88, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2008.00010.x, 2008.
Decision-making for flood risk management is often the collective effort of professionals within government, NGOs, private practice, and advocacy groups. Our research investigates differences among flood experts within Tompkins County, New York (USA). We explore how they differ in their perceptions of flooding risk, desired project outcomes, and knowledge. We observe substantial differences among experts, and recommend formally acknowledging these perceptions when engaging in flood management.
Decision-making for flood risk management is often the collective effort of professionals within...