The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A systematic review of natural flood management modelling: Approaches, limitations, and potential solutions
Abstract
The Pitt Review of the 2007 summer floods in the UK, published in 2008, commended the potential of natural flood management (NFM) for reducing flood risk. NFM is a nature‐based approach that has since gained substantial interest from both practitioners and academics. The review further highlighted the need for catchment‐based flood management (CBFM) to enhance resilience to flooding and climate change by incorporating NFM and wider nature‐based solutions into hard flood protection systems. Such integrated approaches are considered to be more sustainable and adaptable than the traditional hard‐engineered measures. More recently, the European Commission's European Green Deal also highlighted the need for greater use of nature‐based solutions including NFM for managing flood risk. Whilst there have been many attempts to quantify the effects of NFM through hydraulic and hydrological modelling, there is still no systematic review conducted for these modelling works. This review aims to summarise the current NFM modelling approaches, as well as discussing their key limitations related to data, model methods, and real‐world applications. This paper then goes further to highlight potential solutions to some of these challenges and provides guidance to assist modellers to improve future modelling and data collection process.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This simplification introduces substantial uncertainty, as seasonal phenology, such as the transition from leaf-off winter conditions to dense summer canopies, can alter flow resistance significantly 12 .”
From AI-driven digital twinning quantifies the trade-off between flood conveyance and riparian stability under climate extremes (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Chen, Y., Tan, M., Wan, J., et al. (2020) · European Journal of Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/22797254.2020.1758962 · Cited by 16
RetractedThe PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity
BUNN, S. E., & ARTHINGTON, A. H. (2002) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0 · Cited by 3,379
The role of google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching
Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 · Cited by 2,387
Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2005.043125 · Cited by 1,976
Dietz, M. E. (2007) · Water Air & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z · Cited by 1,160
Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century.
Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. (2002) · Cited by 863
Declining vulnerability to river floods and the global benefits of adaptation
Jongman, B., Winsemius, H., Aerts, J. C. J. H., de Perez, E. C., van Aalst, M., Kron, W., & Ward, P. J. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1414439112 · Cited by 506
A global framework for future costs and benefits of river-flood protection in urban areas
Ward, P. J., Jongman, B., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Bates, P., Botzen, W. J. W., Loaiza, A. D., Stéphane Hallegatte, A., Kind, J. M., Kwadijk, J., Scussolini, P., et al. (2017) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3350 · Cited by 394
Dadson, S., Hall, J. W., Murgatroyd, A., Acreman, M., Bates, P., Beven, K. J., Heathwaite, A. L., Holden, J., Holman, I. P., Lane, S. N., et al. (2017) · Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.2016.0706 · Cited by 379
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- ARUP, 2020, River Hull natural flood management study – Synthesis report
- Burgess‐Gamble L., 2017, Working with natural processes–evidence directory
- CRED, 2020, Disaster year in review 2020, global trends and perspectives
- Ferguson C.(2020).The effects of upstream Natural Flood Management on urban surface drainage performance(Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge.
- Fitton S. L.(2015).Social value in practice: A case of flood alleviation schemes. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge.
- Hankin B., 2016, Strategic investigation of natural flood management in Cumbria
- Higgins J. P. T., 2011, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0
- Iacob O.(2015).Natural flood management: An ecosystem based adaptation response for climate change(Doctoral dissertation). University of Dundee.
- JBA Consulting, 2015, High level assessment of flood storage options in Debenham: Phase 1 – Natural Flood Management
- Metcalfe P., 2017, Case study 2: Brompton runoff attenuation modelling – North Yorkshire
- Moore R. D., 2005, Slug injection using salt in solution, Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin, 8, 1
- Pearson C.(2016).Modelling the potential impact of spatially targeted natural flood management at the landscape scale for a rural UK catchment(MSc by research Dissertation). Durham University.
- Pitt M.(2008).Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. Pitt Review.
- POSTNOTE, 2016, Green space and health
- Rogers M.(2017).Can structure from motion determine the efficacy of river re‐meandering as a natural flood management measure. (Doctoral dissertation MSc thesis). University of Cambridge.
- SEPA, 2016, Natural flood management handbook
- Sisson J., 2017, Case study 9 – River Elwy runoff attenuation modelling – Denbighshire, 5
- Smith K. L.(2017).Investigating the potential of 3D visualisation to enhance stakeholder engagement in natural flood management. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Gloucestershire.
- Welton P., 2017, Case study 13: Lustrum Beck runoff attenuation modelling – Stockton on Tees
- Wilkinson M., 2017, Case study 1 – Tarland burn runoff attenuation modelling – Aberdeenshire
- Yan Y. &Ryu Y.(2019).Google street view and deep learning: A new ground truthing approach for crop mapping. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.05024. · arXiv
Cited by
Shin, J. H., Go, S. H., & Park, J. H. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-63704-8
Metadata
- Authors
- Hill, B., Liang, Q., Bosher, L., Chen, H., & Nicholson, A.
- Affiliations
- School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering Loughborough University Loughborough LE11 3TU UK
- Newcastle Office Arup Group Ltd 5 Forth St, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 3PL Tyne and Wear UK
- ORCID
- Hill, Bartholomew
- Venue
- Journal of Flood Risk Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-04-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1753-318X
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 135
- Language
- en
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: A systematic review of natural flood management modelling: Approaches, limitations, and potential solutions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jfr3.12899
- The paper
- Hill, B., Liang, Q., Bosher, L., Chen, H., & Nicholson, A. (2023). A systematic review of natural flood management modelling: Approaches, limitations, and potential solutions. Journal of Flood Risk Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12899
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.
