One of the most severe challenges facing the United Kingdom. Winter floods. A round- table bringing together researchers and practitioners. Geographers offer a holistic oversight. Interdependencies of physical and human influences. Identifying conflicts and syneUrgieKs. fDilfoferoendt a rreias okf g moveranmneant gpoelicmy. Geeongrtaphical research specialisms offer evidence. Specialisms include hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, land management. GeogPraophleirsc synt hreesiscinog amnd cmritiqeuinngd evaidtenicoe.n Imspl ementing sustainable flood risk management. Government should draw on the available evidence for adopting a more cost-effective and sustainable flood risk management approach. Invest selectively to fill key research gaps. Adapt policies given the changing nature of flooding. Differentiate between different types of flooding. Paying greater attention to ground water and surface water flooding. Greater risks from surface water and ground water flooding. Surface water flooding can happen anywhere in the country. Changes have not been recognised or incorporated into policy. Residual risk needs to be better understood and communicated. All flood defences have a designed capability. Current design standards for flood defences may not be adequate. Natural Flood Management has the potential to make a more substantial contribution. Catchment-scale modelling. Initiatives on agriculture and on flood risk management. Funding models should be explored. Compensating or paying farmers to manage the land. A portfolio of catchment-wide flood risk management measures. Include conventional flood defences, sound planning decisions, infrastructure design and regulation. Substantial economic, environmental and social co-benefits. Increased biodiversity; carbon sequestration; water quality; public health and wellbeing. Natural Flood Management (NFM) has some value. Integrated modelling and experimental studies. Upland and lowland catchments. Investment in long-term monitoring. Observe the hydrological, sediment, debris and geomorphological responses. Active support of rural communities, land owners and most crucially, farmers. Disconnect between institutions delivering agricultural policy and the delivery of flood risk management. Incentives for farmers. Effectiveness of dredging in mitigating flood risk. Undue secondary adverse effects. Sediment and geomorphological evidence. Documented and measured flow records. Use channel change maps and lake, coastal back barrier and floodplain sediment archives. Model-based estimation of flood frequency. Extreme events. Vulnerability to flooding in the river system. Channel changes mapped using remote sensing imagery. Sedimentary paleoflood records. Captured from lake, swamp and coastal cores. Documentation of flood magnitude and frequency over thousands of years. Flow data. Short-term hydrological records. Improve the access to data on flooding. Improve public understanding. Join up flood policy. Pitt Review.Give local communities a greater say in flood risk management. Can lessons be learned from approaches taken in Scotland? Partnerships between universities and local authorities. Land-use priorities at national and sub-national scales. Flood risk facing new-build homes and infrastructure. Cost-benefit analysis of extreme flood events. £700 million for flood protection announced in the March 2016 Budget. Public, media and Parliamentarians. Raise awareness of flooding. Harness local knowledge. Public engagement methodologies. Introduction The Government has recognised flooding as one of the most severe challenges facing the United Kingdom, a threat which is projected to increase as the climate changes. Major flooding events in recent years, including the 2015-16 winter floods following the wettest December ever recorded in the UK, mean that the Government’s response to flooding is under review. It is in this context that the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) has produced these recommendations. In May 2016, the Society convened a round-table bringing together researchers and practitioners representing the breadth of geography – spanning physical and social science – and the significant expertise on flooding which exists within the community. These recommendations, to inform the development of flood risk management policy, are the result of this round-table meeting and subsequent work. The contribution of geographical research and practice to flood risk management F l o o d • Geographical research specialisms , 3 J u l y offer important, in depth, evidence across 2 0 1 1 © the physical and social sciences that can H e n r y L be used to inform the development of a k e policy, and in particular spatially-based policy. These specialisms range from hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, land management and quaternary environmental changes to the impacts of planning policy and community responses. • Geographers offer a holistic oversight • Geographers also play a significant role of flood risk management. This is in synthesising and critiquing evidence, an essential requirement of effective communicating this to policy-makers management, given the complexity in and to the public. The Royal Geographical the number and the interdependencies Society (with the Institute of British of physical and human influences on Geographers), as the UK’s learned society flood risk and flooding. This extends to and professional body for geography, has identifying conflicts and synergies, where an important role to play in the exchange these exist, between different areas of of knowledge between the academic, government policy that may affect flood practice and policy communities. risk, directly and indirectly. 1 Policy recommendations 1. Implementing sustainable management approach in the UK, and to flood risk management invest selectively to fill key research gaps. Recommendation 1 2. New geographies of flooding Government should draw on the Recommendation 2 available evidence to inform its Review and adapt policies given policies for adopting a more cost- the changing nature of flooding: effective and sustainable flood risk management approach in the UK; 2.1 Take a broader view of the and invest selectively to fill key geographies of flooding, spatially research gaps. and temporally, to reflect the changing pattern of flooding in The tools, science (physical, economic winter and summer; and, and social) and expert knowledge that we have available are sufficient to inform 2. 2 Differentiate between different the development of evidence-based types of flooding and understand the policy by Government to address future linkages between them (in particular, flooding risks and to build resilience, paying greater attention to ground- albeit with some further focused research. water and surface water flooding). The challenge now is for Government to The nature and geography of flooding draw on this evidence to inform its policies in the UK appears to be changing, with for adopting and implementing a more greater risks from surface water and cost effective and sustainable flood risk groundwater flooding now that the main 2 flood plains have been protected by All flood defences have a designed investment over many years. Due to its capability. The flooding events of 2013/14 often very long duration, groundwater and 2015/16 have demonstrated this flooding has a significant and widespread in that flood defences were overtopped. economic impact. Surface water flooding Current design standards for flood defences can happen anywhere in the country, not may not be adequate, particularly with simply on floodplains, and is a function of respect to withstanding repeated flood/ existing drainage capacities; these are not storm events occurring over a short period designed to cope with the high magnitudes of time and the increased risks of flooding and intensities of rainfall that the UK is now posed by climate change. How best to experiencing. These changes have not communicate and mitigate the residual been recognised or incorporated into policy risk to communities should be explored. and practice or understood by the public. 4. Natural Flood Management 3. Flood defences and residual risk Recommendation 4 Recommendation 3 Natural Flood Management (NFM) Residual risk needs to be better has the potential to make a more understood and communicated. substantial contribution to flood risk management in the UK if used 3.1 Research is needed into the as part of a portfolio of measures nature and extent of the residual risk and, as an approach, is integrated that communities face where they across Government. are ‘protected’ by engineering and other schemes. 4.1 To inform NFM there is a need for more catchment-scale modelling to 3.2 People in those communities upscale from smaller NFM treatments need to be more aware of the idea of to larger scales, with carefully residual risk and their exposure to it. designed catchment experiments. 3 4. 2 The department s/ institutions The relatively limited available evidence delivering initiatives on agriculture (from small catchment monitoring and and on flood risk management modelling studies) suggests that NFM has should be expected to work more some value, at least in small catchments closely together to maximise impact (up to 100 kilometres square) and for less and to avoid conflicting outcomes. severe, high frequency flood events. A key question that remains to be answered is 4. 3 Existing funding models what scale and type of NFM can deliver should be explored