The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: Application to flood risk
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents a novel framework for undertaking climate change impact studies, which can be used for testing the robustness of precautionary climate change allowances used in engineering design. It is illustrated with respect to fluvial flood risk in the UK. The methodology departs from conventional scenario-led impact studies because it is based on sensitivity analyses of catchment responses to a plausible range of climate changes (rather than the time-varying outcome of individual scenarios), making it scenario-neutral. The method involves separating the climate change projections (the hazard) from the catchment responsiveness (the vulnerability) expressed as changes in peak flows. By combining current understanding of likelihood of the climate change hazard with knowledge of the sensitivity of a given catchment, it is possible to evaluate the fraction of climate model projections that would not be accommodated by specified safety margins. This enables rapid appraisal of existing or new precautionary allowances for a set of climate change projections, but also for any new set of climate change projections for example arising from a new generation of climate models as soon as they are available, or when focusing on a different planning time horizon, without the need for undertaking a new climate change impact analysis with the new scenarios. The approach is demonstrated via an assessment of the UK Government’s 20% allowance for climate change applied in two contrasting catchments. In these exemplars, the allowance defends against the majority of sampled climate projections for the 2080s from the IPCC-AR4 GCM and UKCP09 RCM runs but it is still possible to identify a sub-set of regional scenarios that would exceed the 20% threshold.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Beven, K., & Freer, J. (2001) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(01)00421-8 · Cited by 2,189
Cited by
Future climate risk from compound events
Zscheischler, J., Westra, S., van den Hurk, B. J. J. M., Seneviratne, S. I., Ward, P. J., Pitman, A., AghaKouchak, A., Bresch, D. N., Leonard, M., Wahl, T., et al. (2018) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0156-3 · Cited by 2,527
Storyline approach to the construction of regional climate change information
Shepherd, T. G. (2019) · Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0013 · Cited by 331
Syldon, P., Shrestha, B. B., Miyamoto, M., Tamakawa, K., & Nakamura, S. (2024) · Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2024.101687 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Prudhomme, C., Wilby, R. L., Crooks, S., Kay, A. L., & Reynard, N. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Hydrology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 390
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 198-209
- ISSN
- 0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1989473331
- Cited by
- 415
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: Application to flood risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.043
- The paper
- Prudhomme, C., Wilby, R. L., Crooks, S., Kay, A. L., & Reynard, N. S. (2010). Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: Application to flood risk. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.043
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.