Echoes from the past

The mid-1990s was an important time for me professionally, having started my career in 1974 as a mathematician and engineer working on the development of computational models and their application in practice to flood mitigation. Several opportunities and events came together in this period, which eventually led to my position now as the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Flood Risk Management. Looking through the papers and the themes and approaches contained in this issue of the Journal triggered me to reflect back about 25 years. I see among the contributions in this issue several papers involving the use of alternative (non-deterministic) modelling methods in complex cases, and, that several contributions are motivated by the need to consider future risks as the climate changes. These led me to reflect on two events in my own professional career from 1995: first, a conference keynote lecture at the 26th World Congress of the International Association of Hydraulic Research, HYDRA 2000 and second, the preparation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report. At HYDRA 2000, Prof. Huib de Vriend (1997) gave insights into simulating morphological processes, emphasising that ever-more detailed process-based modelling and analysis was insufficient to capture behaviour in the large complex systems where broad-scale behaviours emerge from connectivity and non-linear interactions within the system. For me, this was a critical realisation that combining expertise from a variety of disciplines could lead to new understanding and was critical in moving forward in the development of flood management. The integration of knowledge from many professions lies at the heart of flood risk management practice; however, reflecting this in fully within models remains challenging. As computational resources have increased beyond imagination (mine at least) over the past 25 years so has the complexity of models both in terms of the inter-connected processes incorporated and the spatial and temporal resolution possible. Even so, new approaches are evident in this issue, which address problems of practical importance, with the growth of data-driven modelling and of artificial intelligence applications. As flood risk management involves many factors, effective solutions need to take account of not only physical interactions within complex physical systems but also their interaction with social, behavioural, and environmental aspects. With increased complexity of modelling and interactions comes the need to check that the modelling does in fact provide a useful representation of real life. Penning-Rowsell (2014) attempts such a comparison for the valuation of flood risk. Looking back again to the mid-1990s, 1995 saw the preparation of the IPCC second assessment report (IPCC AR2). Of particular importance was the accepted statement that “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” (IPCC, 1996). In response to this and other advice in drafts of the IPCC AR2 report, the UK Government began examining how aspects of public policy would need to change, with one area being flood and coastal defence. I had the privilege of contributing to the discussions on the national research strategy (HR Wallingford, 1996) drawn up in response to the findings of the IPCC AR2 report. At that time, the complexity of potential interactions was evident along with the large uncertainties in prediction, particularly at the scale of UK river systems and coastal process cells. These all clearly pointed to precautionary management as an approach. Nationally, this research led to the adoption of the policy of flood risk management, embracing the potential influence of climate change, in place of the historic emphasis on flood protection and defence. At the time of preparation of the IPCC AR2, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was about 360 ppm, a key driver of climate change; now, some 25 years later, this has risen to over 410 ppm (Copernicus, 2021). Although it is still seen by some as contentious, recent data are entirely consistent with climate change impacting upon flood risk, and this is of key importance to flood risk management in practice. The influence of climate change on flood risks is clearly stated in the introductory sections of half the papers in this issue and is the explicit topic of the contribution of Daksiya, Mandapaka, and Lo (2020) on urban flooding. I would like now to discuss where are we going as a Journal. The current pandemic and national responses to the COVID-19 emergency have highlighted the importance in risk management of linking public policy to scientific understanding and have demonstrated the complexity of natural and social systems and their management. As Karin de Bruijn (2020) commented in the last editorial “Although floods are very different from pandemics, important lessons can be learned, for example, on what is vital and must continue functioning (e.g., schools, health care), on how experts and politicians should or could best work together (sharing responsibilities), on the need of involving all relevant stakeholders when taking decisions, and on communication.” The Journal has undergone significant change with transition to open-access publication implemented over the past 18 months. Previously, our publication was constrained by an annual page budget set to ensure the stability of the finances of the Journal. With open-access, the page count for each issue has been lifted to ensure faster assignment of papers to an issue, and the Editorial Board is now wishing to build upon the opportunities this presents. We have decided to promote more Special Issues where we will invite Guest Editors to assemble papers around a common theme of current importance, often including a state-of-the-art review. Our initial plan is to have two such issues a year in addition to our normal flow of original contributions. We are actively seeking to increase the size of our Panel of Editors to assist with the increased load of peer review that will be needed as it is our firm commitment that there will be no reduction in the rigour or quality of peer review or editorial scrutiny needed for a paper to be accepted for publication. It is our intention that some of these Special Issues will explore topics on the horizon now that will influence the flood risk management profession, and society more generally, at a generational timescale. Finally, I would like to acknowledge, with much gratitude, the support and commitment the Journal receives from all our peer reviewers, who make time voluntarily to read and comment upon the manuscripts we receive. Thank you all; without your contributions, it would not be possible to publish the Journal of Flood Risk Management. I know from my own experience that it can take several hours to prepare a good review. It is essential to read the paper in detail, to potentially follow up references, and then construct a reasoned criticism to assist both the editorial team and the authors. If, as you read this editorial and the papers in this issue of the Journal of Flood Risk Management, you wish to offer your services as a reviewer or would like to join our Panel of Editors, please contact my colleagues in the editorial office by email: journals@ciwem.org.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

4 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.