Content uploaded by Linsey Mason-McLean
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Linsey Mason-McLean on Jan 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of 2013 IAHR Congress
© 2013 Tsinghua University Press, Beijing
ABSTRACT: Natural flood management (NFM) is increasingly adopted as a crucial element within the
UK sustainable flood management strategy. This utilises a non-structural multi-benefit approach, whereby
the landscape’s natural ability is restored or adapted to reduce flood risk by permanently or temporarily:
retaining flood water, providing attenuation, promoting sediment deposition and transport, and adjusting
the geomorphology formations of river systems (Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act, 2009). Despite
the drive for NFM, it is well-recognized that there is a significant lack of evidence that NFM techniques
are actually effective in reducing flood risk at all scales of (sub-) catchment. Simultaneously, NFM
“multiple benefits” require evidence based quantification in order to fully evaluate and appraise NFM
techniques as a substitute or to compliment hard engineered flood defences. Thus, within the UK the full
range of NFM is being specifically assessed for this, and the associated cost-benefit, by way of field
monitoring in a number of demonstration catchments but still requires extensive research. The aim of this
paper is to identify variables, based on evidence and literature, which are suitable for monitoring the
impacts, multiple benefits and ecosystem services (ES) of NFM techniques, specifically; riparian
vegetation and bund runoff attenuation features (RAFs). The variables identified are translated in a
conceptual management tool and will enable the data collection that is required for the quantification of
NFM multiple benefits from an ES perspective achievable. Essentially, this tool, and the variables
identified, will assist in addressing policy and research gaps whereby; NFM measures must be appraised
as a statutory obligation and the multiple benefits are often not extensively researched, resulting in
inconclusive scientific evidence of their wider impacts and benefits. This tool will adopt an “ecosystem
service approach” in selecting variables, a relatively new concept and approach, advocated to provide a
holistic management technique able to comprehensively represent the three pillars of sustainability (social,
economic and environment).
KEY WORDS: Natural flood management, Multiple benefits, Ecosystem services, Riparian vegetation,
Runoff attenuation features.
1 INTRODUCTION
Predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and UK Climate Projections
(UKCP09) indicate that the UK will experience increased summer temperatures and increased winter
rainfall events that will become more intense in nature (IPCC, 2007, UK Climate Projections, 2009a, UK
Climate Projections, 2009b). Climate change is likely to increase the number of people at risk of being
flooded from fluvial, pluvial and surface water sources. In order to mitigate the unwanted human,
environmental and economic impacts of climate change, flooding must be managed cost-effectively and
Natural Flood Management in the UK: Developing a Conceptual
Management Tool
Linsey McLean
PhD Student, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. Email:lm307@hw.ac.uk
Dr. Lindsay Beevers
Lecturer, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. Email: L.Beevers@hw.ac.uk
Professor Gareth Pender
Prof. of Environmental Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. Email:G.Pender@hw.ac.uk
Dr. Heather Haynes
Senior Lecturer, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. Email: H.Haynes@hw.ac.uk
Dr. Mark Wilkinson,
Catchment Hydrologist, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen. E-mail: Mark.Wilkinson@hutton.ac.uk
2
sustainably to ensure resilience and effective adaptation to future conditions. NFM is theorized and
promoted to be a cost-effective sustainable measure for reducing flood risk and is subsequently explored
in this study.
Natural Flood Management (NFM) has been formally introduced to the UK through the 2007
European (EU) Directive on the Assessment of Management of Flood Risk (2007/60/EC) (Floods
Directive), which has been transposed into UK legislation in the form of the Flood Risk Management
(Scotland) Act 2009 and the Flooding and Water Management Act 2010. These UK laws formally
introduced the requirement for NFM techniques to be fully considered and appraised when managing
flood risk and integrated NFM as a crucial element of sustainable flood management (APS Group
Scotland, 2011). NFM is defined in Scotland as “working with or restoring natural flooding processes
with the aim of reducing flood risk and delivering other benefits”(Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act,
2009). There are numerous NFM techniques outlined in Table 1:
Table 1 Natural flood management measures
Despite the statutory requirement for NFM to be considered and advocated when managing flood risk,
policy has essentially promoted NFM when there is lack of evidence to support the theory that natural
processes and features can effectively reduce flood risk at various scales. It is widely indicated that
catchment scale NFM effectiveness remains elusive and further extensive research in flood risk is
required to inform policy. Further to these contentions, insufficient research has been applied to
quantifying the multiple benefits of each of the NFM measures and given the statutory requirement
to appraise shortlisted measures for a specific site, limited data and tools exist to assist and support
this process. NFM multiple benefits could be understood and evaluated by using an ecosystem service
(ES) approach, enabling the benefits of each NFM measure to be examined in relation to the provision of
ES (Frontier Economics Ltd et al., 2013, Iacob et al., 2012). ES are defined as dynamically complex
interacting units at various scales which living organisms interact with one another chemically, physically
or biologically, and with abiotic factors; creating natural processes that enable intricate ecological
balances within one system (TEEB, 2012, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST),
2007). These ecosystems and their processes provide goods and services that humans benefit from (and
depend on) directly or indirectly: the concept of ecosystem goods and services is synonymous with ES
(POST, 2007). The ES approach is a relatively new concept being advocated as an effective catchment
management perspective when evaluating NFM (Iacob et al., 2012, Barber and Quinn, 2012b, Brauman et
al., 2007).
For the purpose of this study, riparian vegetation and RAFs will be assessed as they each represent
opposite ends of the ES and NFM spectrum and therefore enable the management tool to be tested
effectively. Riparian vegetation for example, is derived as a water quality measure with extensive
literature to indicate their ES provision and multiple benefits, but has recently been advocated as an NFM
measure (despite lack of evidence to support the claim it reduces flood risk). Conversely, RAFs derived
from a hard engineering background and have a good strong evidence base for their flood risk reduction
abilities but limited scientific evidence on their multiple benefits or effects on ES. This study aims to
establish a conceptual management tool, based on literature, which will identify the multiple benefits
of specific NFM measures and the correlating variables suitable to monitor. This paper focusses on
understanding the difference between both NFM techniques and the impact this makes in designing
monitoring strategies, supporting the appraisal of NFM techniques required by UK legislation.
Agricultural land use practices
Bank stabilisation
Riparian vegetation (woodland and buffers)
Re-meandering
Afforestation
Wetlands
Erosion control and sediment management
Large woody debris
Runoff attenuation features (RAFs) (using
earth bunds or wooden structures)
Floodplain restoration- reconnection,
woodlands and wetlands
Drain blocking- agricultural and upland
3
2 STUDY METHODS
In order to identify the multiple benefits of riparian vegetation and RAFs, evidence gathered will
highlight the potential variables that can be monitored in the field. Further to this review, the ES
associated with these multiple benefits will be identified, as well as the evidence base for the ability of
both NFM measures to reduce flood risk. Based on the findings of the review of literature a conceptual
management tool will be developed illustrating the linkages between NFM multiple benefits and ES. Prior
to conducting the literature search it was required to develop categories for the tool and determine how
these would be linked together. The categories outlined in the framework are shown in table 2.
Table 2 Management tool categories and definitions
Tool Categories
Definitions of categories
Multiple benefits
The specific multiple benefits related to a specific NFM measure.
Variables
Measurable variables that can be monitored in the field to establish any changes
that the NFM measure may have on its associated multiple benefits.
ES provided
Identifies the list of specific ES that are provided by the specific NFM measure.
Colour coding of the variables shows the linkages between ES, variables and
multiple benefits.
ES classification
Distinguishes the ES classification of corresponding multiple benefits and
variables in relation to both the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)
classification (supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural) and the UK
National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA) classification (primary/ intermediate,
final and goods/ benefits).
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Riparian Vegetation Flood Risk Evidence
The riparian zone is an uncultivated strip of vegetated and adjacent to watercourses, which are
considered an ecotone: a habitat where there is an abrupt meeting of two contrasting communities that are
individually homogenous (Stockan et al., 2012, Pert et al., 2010). Riparian vegetation varies from
woodland species to grass and shrub species, all of which have an influence on surface and subsurface
flows by creating storage, slowing flows and attenuating flood peaks (through hydraulic roughness): this
influence varies with density, height, shape, physiology, flexibility, season and succession (Tabacchi et al.,
2000). Table 2 outlines studies that have modelled the impact of riparian vegetation on flood risk and their
key findings. However, there is notably a lack of monitoring based evidence that riparian vegetation,
especially non-woodland species, can reduce flood risk (Lane, 2008), which may be the result of their
origin being from a water quality perspective.
Table 3 Riparian literature findings that demonstrate the ability of riparian vegetation to reduce flood risk.
AUTHORS
DETAILS OF STUDY
FINDINGS
(Johnson et al.,
2008)
Modelling study to investigate
changes in local flood water
storage in a 1 year flood event
and 100 year flood event.
Annual flood event: 15% increase in storage and
Tp reduced by 30 minutes.
100yr RP: 71% increase in storage and Tp
reduced by 140 minutes.
(Anderson et al.,
2006)
Modelled four return periods:
2, 10, 50 and 100 year, and
riparian canopy height and
density parameters.
Flood wave propagation occurred between 5 and
20 hours for a 2yr RP and between 7 and 16
hours for a 100yr RP. Wave celerity was more
sensitive to smaller floods. Riparian attenuation
ability (roughness) declines with flood magnitude
and increasing channel size downstream.
4
3.2 Riparian Vegetation Multiple Benefits
According to Stutter et al. (2012), riparian vegetation buffers (RVBs) and the crucial multiple
functions it carries out are widely researched, but literature is restricted to mostly single riparian functions.
There is now a need for science to address the interdisciplinary multiple function research gap (Stutter et
al., 2012), even more so because the multiple benefits of riparian vegetation need to be fully understood
to ensure effective appraisal as a NFM measure or in terms of managing ES provision. As illustrated by
Table 3, the benefits of RVBs can be categorized into: ecology/ habitat/ biodiversity; hydrology and
hydraulics; pollution control; woody debris; riverbank stabilisation/ erosion control/ sediment trapping;
and socio-economic.
3.3 Runoff Attenuation Feature Flood Risk Evidence
RAFs originate as a hard engineering solution to reducing flood risk that have essentially been
naturalised, by using sustainable natural materials like wood and soil, to become a viable NFM measure.
They have also previously been utilised as a nutrient management features to address diffuse pollution
issues. RAFs are commonly implemented as an “off-line” flood storage feature aimed to attenuate
out-of-bank flows during flood events or overland flow (Environment Agency, 2012).
Figure 1 Pilot RAF (Pond 0) and stream (downstream of diversion structure) water level from 5-7th September 2008
flood event (Wilkinson et al., 2010b).
According to a study by Wilkinson et al. (2010b) in the Belford catchment (UK), RAFs demonstrated
their effectiveness by becoming functional when the water level reached ~35cm (Figure 1- the first peak
within the graph) and slowly released the water back to the stream without adversely affecting the
receding limb (Wilkinson et al., 2010b). In the second flood peak event, the RAF is shown to exceed its
capacity and react quicker than the first event due to prior saturation (Wilkinson et al., 2010b). Despite
(upstream RAFs) remaining at capacity for three hours, the travel time to peak is delayed by 15minutes
after RAF construction (Wilkinson et al., 2010b). Nevertheless, the Wilkinson et al. (2010b) demonstrates
the effectiveness and potential to reduce local scale, and catchment scale (Nicholson et al., 2012), flood
risk by using RAFs.
3.4 Runoff Attenuation Feature Multiple Benefits
Table 4 outlines the multiple benefits of RAFs: ecology/ habitat/ biodiversity; hydraulics/ hydrology;
pollution control/ sediment trapping; and socio-economic. Barber and Quinn (2012a) recommend further
research and the development of a methodology to adequately quantify the multiple benefits of RAFs
from an ES perspective.
Proceedings of 2013 IAHR Congress
© 2013 Tsinghua University Press, Beijing
Table 4 Riparian vegetated buffers multiple benefits and measurable variables.
BENEFIT
CATEGORY
SPECIFIC RIPARIAN BENEFITS
VARIABLES
LITERATURE
Hydraulics/
Hydrology
Hydrological functions:
interception, stem flow, infiltration,
evapotranspiration, water storage
and floodplain connection
Hydraulic roughness, turbulence,
flood peak reduction
- Canopy density
- Species physiology
- Vol. rainfall/ time
- Evapotranspiration rates
- Rainfall/ runoff
- Soil moisture
- Slope (channel and hill)
- Geology
- Temp. (soil, water, air)
- Particle size distribution (PSD) of
sediment load (bed and suspended)
- Root system
- Distance from stream
- Soil infiltration rate/ compaction
- Soil structure, type and distribution
- Vol. of biomass
- Groundwater level
- Time to peak
- Base flow
- Peak/ stage/ bank full discharge
- Manning’s n coefficient
- Channel geometry
- Overbank area wetted by flood
- Land use
- Stocking densities
- Crop species, cultivation practices
and timeframes
(Broadmeadow and Nisbet,
2004, Pollen-Bankhead and
Simon, 2010, Rassam et al.,
2006, Anderson et al., 2006,
Gribovszki et al., 2008,
Anderson et al., 2005,
Merritt et al., 2009, Tabacchi
et al., 2000, Ranalli and
Macalady, 2010)
Ecology/
Habitat/
Biodiversity
Food source: e.g. inverts
Stream shading & micro-climates
Ecological connectivity
Species diversity (in dominantly
homogenous landscapes)
Habitat for various aquatic and
terrestrial species
- Vegetation/ canopy height
- Canopy cover
- Vegetation density (% bare ground)
- Soil chemistry (pH, N, P, C, S, K,
Ma, Ca & Si)
- Species richness and abundance of
aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates
- Buffer strip age
- Classification of habitat (according
to phase 1 habitat survey)
- Land use
- Fish- population, age structure,
number caught in a recreational
fishing season
- Spatial differences in water
temperature
(Tabacchi et al., 2000,
Stutter et al., 2012, Mander
et al., 2005, Stockan et al.,
2012, Gribovszki et al.,
2008)
Natural
Debris
Increase and decrease in flood risk
Attenuate flood peaks
Source and sink for organic and
inorganic debris
Increased N uptake by autotrophs
(in pools)
Hydraulic roughness
- Manning’s n coefficient
- N- (water and sediment)
- Water velocity
- Groundwater level
- Time to peak
- Base flow
- Peak/ stage/ bank full discharge
- Channel geometry & slope (channel
and hill)
- Rainfall/ runoff
- Vol. rainfall/time
- Evapotranspiration rates
- Land use
- Overbank area wetted by flood
(Broadmeadow and Nisbet,
2004, Tabacchi et al., 2000,
Piégay and Gurnell, 1997,
Stutter et al., 2012,
Weigelhofer et al., 2012)
6
BENEFIT
CATEGORY
SPECIFIC RIPARIAN BENEFITS
VARIABLES
LITERATURE
Pollution
Control
Nutrient Cycling: N, P, C, S &
pathogens
Maintain DO levels
Filtration of diffuse pollution,
heavy metals & contaminants
(pesticides/ herbicides)
Improve water quality
Reduce sedimentation in channel-
reduced flood risk, turbidity and
mobilisation of P, N and pathogens.
Intercept pollution runoff from
land uses
In addition to Hydraulics/ Hydrology
variables (above):
- P- total, particulate and dissolved
(soil, sediment & water)
- N- total, organic and dissolved (soil,
sediment & water)
- Heavy metals and contaminants
- Fish- population, age structure,
number caught in a recreational
fishing season
- Suspended solids (SS)
- Sediment settling velocity
- PSD of bed and suspended sediment
- Coliform bacteria
- Soil organic carbon (SOC)
- Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
- Oxygen concentrations
- Water velocity
(Stutter et al., 2012, Stutter
and Richards, 2012, Roberts
et al., 2012, Dorioz et al.,
2006, Hoffmann et al., 2009,
Stutter et al., 2009, Merritt et
al., 2009, Collins et al.,
2009, Rassam et al., 2006,
Krovang et al., 2012,
Mander et al., 2005, Ranalli
and Macalady, 2010)
Riverbank
Stabilisation/
Erosion
Control/
Sediment
Trapping
- Reduces bank erosion
- Reduces sedimentation of channel
and therefore reduces flood risk,
turbidity and mobilisation of P, N
and pathogens
- Effects geomorphological
processes and formations
(meanders/ channel shape/ bars)
- Improves denitrification (more
organic matter (carbon) in
saturated areas)
- Improves water quality- reduces
turbidity, P and N
- Improves soil formation, plant
growth and plant nutrient uptake
- Improves fish habitat
In addition to Hydraulics/ Hydrology
and Pollution Control variables:
- Cross-sectional change
- In-stream bedforms
- Sinuosity
- River migration rates
- Bank material
- Soil formation rate
- Macrophytes: population,
distribution and density.
- Vol. biomass
- Coliform bacteria
- Soil organic carbon (SOC)
- Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
- Oxygen concentrations
(Stutter et al., 2009,
Broadmeadow and Nisbet,
2004, Collins et al., 2010,
Pollen-Bankhead and Simon,
2010, Krovang et al., 2012,
Merritt et al., 2009, Roberts
et al., 2012, Dorioz et al.,
2006, Stutter and Richards,
2012, Stutter et al., 2012,
Mander et al., 2005)
Socio-
Economic
Aesthetically pleasing
Public/ Educational/ recreational
access
Biomass/ food/ fuel
- Financial returns (biomass)
- Fish- population, age structure,
number caught in a recreational
fishing season
- No. of fishing permits sold per
season/ no. visitors
- Savings (water treatment/water
quality
(Lovett et al., 2004, Stutter
et al., 2012, Pert et al., 2010)
7
Table 5 Runoff attenuation feature multiple benefits and measurable variables
BENEFIT
CATEGORY
SPECIFIC RAF BENEFITS
VARIABLES
LITERATURE
Hydraulics/
Hydrology
Water storage
Groundwater recharge
Disconnection, interception and
attenuation of overland and
out-of-bank flows
Slow infiltration of stored water-
attenuating peak flows.
- Vol. of water storage capacity
- Time to peak
- Peak/ stage/ bank full discharge
- Manning’s n co-efficient
- Slope (channel and hill
slope-DTM or LiDAR)
- Soil type & structure
- Geology
- Residence time (in RAF)
- Vol. rainfall/ time
- Soil infiltration rate & compaction
- Channel geometry
- Overbank area wetted by flood
- Rate of sediment build up behind RAF
- Land use
- Soil moisture/ groundwater level
- Temp. (water)
- Evaporation rate (diurnal and seasonal)
- Hydrological pathways (seasonal)
- Drainage & irrigation connectivity
(Frontier Economics
Ltd et al., 2013,
Barber and Quinn,
2012a, Nicholson et
al., 2012, Owen et
al., 2012, Wilkinson
et al., 2010b,
Wilkinson et al.,
2010a)
Ecology/
Habitat/
Biodiversity
Habitat creation & protection (fish)
Landscape heterogeneity
Biodiversity
- Fish species dynamics: age
structure, presence and population
- Number of fish caught (recreationally)
- Sightings of migratory birds
- Population of migratory birds
(Barber and Quinn,
2012a, Morris et al.,
2008, Jonczyk et al.,
2008)
Pollution
Control
Sediment
Trapping
Nutrient cycling- N, P, C, S &
pathogens (denitrification &
carbon sequestration)
Filtration of diffuse pollution,
heavy metals & contaminants
(fertilisers/ pesticides/ herbicides/
pathogens)
Mitigates periodic nutrient release
incidents
Improved water quality (likely)
- Soil type/structure/ profile/
distribution/ nutrient retention
capacity
- Soil moisture & chemistry
(NH4-N, NO3-N, PO4-P, pH, N, P,
C, K, Ma, Si, S and Ca)
- Land use & stock density
- nutrient sources- proximity and
connectivity
- Hydrological pathways
- Crop species & cultivation practices
- Organic matter
- N and P export coefficient rates from land use
- N and P annual excretion and defecation rates
from livestock
- Fertiliser/ pesticides/ herbicide application-
type, volumes, concentrations, spatial extent,
timing of application
- Temp. (water and soil)
- Macroinvertebrate indicator species
(Frontier Economics
Ltd et al., 2013,
Barber and Quinn,
2012b, Fink and
Mitsch, 2004, Fisher
and Acreman, 2004,
Jonczyk et al., 2008,
Nicholson et al.,
2012)
Socio-
Economic
Aesthetic appeal
Re-use of sediment
Reduce costs of the impact of
flooding on local communities.
- Equivalent cost of fertiliser for
sediment re-use
- Cost of flood impacts (when they
occur)
- Number of properties at flood risk
- Cost of flood insurance
- Equivalent savings on water treatment due to
improved water quality
No relevant literature
Proceedings of 2013 IAHR Congress
© 2013 Tsinghua University Press, Beijing
Figure 2 Riparian vegetation conceptual NFM-Multiple Benefits-ES management tool. 'S'- supporting services, 'R'
regulating services, 'P' provisioning services, 'C' cultural services, 'I' primary/ intermediate services, 'F' final services,
'£' goods and benefits.
3.5 Discussion
The review of literature indicates there is a larger evidence base for RVBs in relation to their ability
to deliver ES compared to that of RAFs, although, most literature does not explicitly look at “ecosystem
services” but rather the individual benefits it affords (Stutter et al., 2012). There is a notable lack of
evidence to suggest that RVBs can reduce flood risk. Most studies model their impact rather than using
empirical data. Conversely, RAFs do have some literature to support flood risk reduction based on both
empirical and modelling studies. In contrast to RVBs, there is an obvious gap in research for RAF
multiple benefits (Stockan et al., 2012).
In comparing Figure 2 and 3, there are several key points to consider:
RVBs have more multiple benefits than RAFs
The multiple benefits of both techniques cover all the ES classifications
The performance of NFM techniques can be monitored from the perspective of multiple
benefits or ES, which dictates the variables chosen for any study (as does cost and time
restrictions)
Coverage of variables chosen for monitoring are dictated by the range and quantity of ES or
multiple benefits that are desired
The tool highlights which variables relate to which multiple benefits or ES chosen, and can
be used as a reference for when converting between approaches
This highlights the extent of the complexity in considering NFM and its multiple benefits from an
ES perspective. The tool and tables are to date, relatively biased towards assessing only multiple benefits
9
and excluding a mechanism for additionally (or scoring) the NFM measure’s ability to reduce food risk.
In relation to Section 20 of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, there is a need to appraise
the “timescale to effectiveness” of any measure. Consequently, further research is required to apply this
conceptual management tool to all NFM measures, as well as integrate and account for timescales, spatial
scales and flood risk effectiveness. Until these can be addressed the tool does not yet fully evaluate NFM
multiple benefits from an ES perspective.
Figure 3 Runoff attenuation conceptual NFM-Multiple Benefits-ES management tool. 'S'- supporting services, 'R'
regulating services, 'P' provisioning services, 'C' cultural services, 'I' primary/ intermediate services, 'F' final services,
'£' goods and benefits
4 CONLUSIONS
In conclusion, UK flood risk policy and practitioners require more evidence that NFM can
effectively reduce flood risk at various scales. Moreover, quantification of NFM multiple benefits are
urgently needed to enable statutory appraisals of NFM. The push towards an ES approach to catchment
management in the UK is driving the need to understand the overlaps and connections between multiple
benefits and ES. This conceptual management tool sets out the numerous field monitoring variables and
how they can be analysed to quantify the impact of a specific NFM measure in these terms, thereby
identifying similarities and connections between types. This tool is however, is in its infancy and requires
further development to integrate key elements such as: timescales, spatial scales and flood risk mitigation
effectiveness.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study is supported by Heriot-Watt University and James Hutton Institute.
10
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, B. G., RUTHERFURD, I. D. & WESTERN, A. W. Vegetation Roughness and Flood Magnitude: A
Case Study of the Relative Impact of Local and Catchment Scale Effects. 29th Hydrology and Water Resources
Symposium: Water Capital, 2005 Rydges Lakside, Canberra. Engineers Australia, 608-615.
ANDERSON, B. G., RUTHERFURD, I. D. & WESTERN , A. W. 2006. An analysis of the influence of riparian
vegetation on the propagation of flood waves. Environmental Modelling & Software, 1290 - 1296.
APS GROUP SCOTLAND 2011. The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Delivering Sustainable Flood
Risk Management. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
BARBER, N., J & QUINN, P. F. 2012a. Catchment-Scale Management of Farm Runoff and the Multiple Benefits It
Can Achieve. BHS Eleventh National Symposium, Hydrology for a Changing World. Dundee: British Hydrological
Society.
BARBER, N. J. & QUINN, P. F. 2012b. Mitigating diffuse water pollution from agriculture using soft-engineered
runoff attenuation features. Area, 44, 454-462.
BRAUMAN, K. A., DAILY, G. C., KA'EO DUARTE, T. & MOONEY, H. A. 2007. The Nature and Value of
Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 32, 67 - 98.
BROADMEADOW, S. & NISBET, T. R. 2004. The Effects of Riparian Forest Management on the Freshwater
Environment: a Literature Review of Best Management Practice. Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences, 8, 286 -
305.
COLLINS, A. L., HUGHS, G., ZHANG, Y. & WHITEHEAD, J. 2009. Mitigating Diffuse Water Pollution from
Agriculture: Riparian Buffer Strip Performance with Width. CAB Reviews; Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary
Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 4, 1-15.
COLLINS, A. L., WALLING, D. E., MCMELLIN, G. K., ZHANG, Y., GRAY, J., MCGONIGLE, D. &
CHERRINGTON, R. 2010. A preliminary investigation of the efficacy of riparian fencing schemes for reducing
contributions from eroding channel banks to the siltation of salmonid spawning gravels across the south west UK.
Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1341-1349.
DORIOZ, J. M., WANG, D., POULENARD, J. & TREVISAN, D. 2006. The effect of grass buffer strips on
phosphorus dynamics- A critical review and sysnthesis as a basis for application in agricultural landscapes in
France. Agricultur, Ecosystems and Environment, 117, 4-21.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 2012. Greater Working with Natural Processes in Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk
Management. Peterborough.
FINK, D. F. & MITSCH, W. J. 2004. Seasonal and storm event nutrient removal by a created wetland in an
agricultural watershed. Ecological Engineering, 23, 313-325.
FISHER, J. & ACREMAN, M. C. 2004. Wetland nutrient removal: a review of the evidence. Hydrology & Earth
Systems Science, 8, 673-685.
FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 2009. UK: The Stationery Office Limited.
FRONTIER ECONOMICS LTD, IRBARIS LLP & ECOFYS 2013. Economics of Climate Resilience Natural
Environment Theme: Natural Flood Management CA0401. Online.
GRIBOVSZKI, Z., KALICZ, P., SZILÁGYI, J. & KUCSARA, M. 2008. Riparian zone evapotranspiration estimation
from diurnal groundwater level fluctuations. Journal of Hydrology, 349, 6-17.
HOFFMANN, C. C., KJAERGAARD, C., UUSI-KÄMPPÄ, J., HANSEN, H. C. B. & KROVANG, B. 2009.
11
Phosphorus Retention in Riparian Buffers: Review of their Efficiency. Journal of Environmental Quality, 38,
1942-1955.
IACOB, O., ROWAN, J., BROWN, I. & ELLIS, C. 2012. Natural Flood Management as a Climate Change
Adaptation Option Assessed Using an Ecosystem Services Approach BHS Eleventh National Symposium,
Hydrology for a Changing World. Dundee: BHS.
IPCC 2007. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In:
PARRY, M. L., CANZIANI, O. F., PALUTIKOF, J. P., VAN DER LINDEN, P. J. & HANSON C. E (eds.).
Cambridge, UK.
JOHNSON, R., WATSON, M. & MCOUAT, E. 2008. The Way Forward for Natural Flood Management in Scotland.
Callander.
JONCZYK, J., QUINN, P. F., RIMMER, D. L., BURKE, S. & WILKINSON, M. Farm Integrated Runoff
Management (FIRM) plans: a tool to reduce diffuse pollution. BHS 10th National Hydrology Symposium, 2008
Exeter. British Hydrological Society.
KROVANG, B., AUDET, J., BAATTRUP-PEDERSEN, A., JENSEN, H. S. & LARSEN, S. E. 2012. Phosphorus
load to surface water from bank erosion in a Danish lowland river basin. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41,
304-313.
LANE, S. N. Slowing the Floods in the UK Pennine Upland...A Case of Waiting for Godot? In: ROTHERHAM, I. D.,
ed. Flooding, Water and the Landscape, 2008 Sheffield Hallam University. Wildtrack Publishing.
LOVETT, S., PRICE, P. & CORK, S. 2004. Fact Sheet 12: Riparian Ecosystem Services. Canberra: Land and Water
Australia.
MANDER, Ü., HAYAKAWA, Y. & KUUSEMETS, V. 2005. Purification processes, ecological functions, planning
and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecological Engineering, 24, 421-432.
MERRITT, D. M., SCOTT, M. L., LEROY POFF, N., AUBLE, G. T. & LYTLE, D. A. 2009. Theory, methods and
tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riaparian vegetation-flow response guilds.
Freshwater Biology.
MORRIS, J., BAILEY, A. P., LAWSON, C. S., LEEDS-HARRISON, P. B., ALSOP, D. & VIVASH, R. 2008. The
economic dimensions of integrating flood management and agrienvironment through washland creation: A case
from Somerset, England. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 372-381.
NICHOLSON, A. R., WILKINSON, M. E., O'DONNELL, G. M. & QUINN, P. F. 2012. Runoff Attenuation Features:
A Sustainable Flood Mitigation Strategy in the Belford Catchment, UK. Area, 44, 463 - 469.
OWEN, G. J., PERKS, M. T., BENSKIN, C. M. H., WILKINSON, M. E., JONCZYK, J. & QUINN, P. F. 2012.
Monitoring Agricultural Diffuse Pollution Through a Dense Monitoring Network in the River Eden Demonstration
Test Catchment, Cumbria, UK. Area, 44, 443 - 453.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (POST) 2007. Ecosystem Services. London: UK
Parliament.
PERT, P. L., BUTLER, J. R. A., BRODIE, J. E., BRUCE, C., HONZÁK, M., KROON, F. J., METCALFE, D.,
MITCHELL, D. & WONG, G. 2010. A catchment-based approach to mapping hydrological ecosystem services
using riparian habitat: A case study from the Wet Tropics, Australia. Ecological Complexity, 7, 378-388.
PIÉGAY, H. & GURNELL, A. M. 1997. Large woody debris and river geomorphological pattern: examples from S.E.
France and S. England. Geomorphology, 19, 99-116.
12
POLLEN-BANKHEAD, N. & SIMON, A. 2010. Hydrologic and hydraulic effects of riparian root networks on
streambank stability: Is mechanical root-reinforcement the whole story? Geomorphology, 116, 353-362.
RANALLI, A. J. & MACALADY, D. L. 2010. The importance of the riparian zone and in-stream processes in nitrate
attenuation in undisturbed and agricultural watersheds – A review of the scientific literature. Journal of Hydrology,
389, 406-415.
RASSAM, D. W., FELLOWS, C. S., DE HAYR, R., HUNTER, H. & BLOESCH, P. 2006. The hydrology of riparian
buffer zones; two case studies in an ephemeral and a perennial stream. Journal of Hydrology, 325, 308-324.
ROBERTS, M. W., STUTTER, M. I. & HAYGARTH, P. M. 2012. Phosphorus Retention and Remobilization in
Vegetated Buffer Strips: A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41, 389-399.
STOCKAN, J. A., LANGAN, S. J. & YOUNG, M. R. 2012. Investigating Riparian Margins for Vegetation Patterns
and Plant-Environment Relationships in Northeast Scotland. Journal of Environmental Quality, 364 - 372.
STUTTER, M. I., CHARDON, W. J. & KRONVANG, B. 2012. Riparian Buffer Strips as a Multifunctional
Management Tool in Agricultural Landscapes: Introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41, 297-303.
STUTTER, M. I., LANGAN, S. J. & LUMSDON, D. G. 2009. Vegetated Buffer Strips Can Lead to Increased
Release of Phosphorus to Waters: A Biogeochemical Assessment of the Mechanisms Environmental Science &
Technology, 43, 1858-1863.
STUTTER, M. I. & RICHARDS, S. 2012. Relationship between Soil Physiochanical, Microbiological Properties, and
Nutrient Release in Buffer Soils Compared to Field Soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41, 400-409.
TABACCHI, E., LANBS, L., GUILLOY, H., PLANTY-TABACCHI, A., MULLER, E. & DÉCAMPS, H. 2000.
Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes. Hydrological Processes, 14, 2959 - 2976.
TEEB 2012. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, Abingdon and
New York, Routledge.
UK CLIMATE PROJECTIONS. 2009a. Summer Mean Precipitation [Online]. UK Climate Projections. Available:
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/21807 [Accessed 13th June 2012].
UK CLIMATE PROJECTIONS. 2009b. Winter mean precipitation [Online]. UK Climate Projections. Available:
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/21806 [Accessed 13th June 2012].
WEIGELHOFER, G., FUCHSBERGER, J., TEUFL, B., WELTI, N. & HEIN, T. 2012. Effects of Riparian Forest
Buffers on In-Stream Nutrient Retention in Agricultural Catchments. J. Environ. Qual., 41, 373-379.
WILKINSON, M. E., QUINN, P. F., BENSON, I. & WELTON, P. 2010a. Runoff Management: Mitigation Measures
for Disconnecting Flow Pathways inthe Beford Burn Catchment to Reduce Flood Risk. BHS Third International
Symposium, Managing Consequences of a Changing Global Environment. Newcastle: British Hydrological
Society.
WILKINSON, M. E., QUINN, P. F. & WELTON, P. 2010b. Runoff Management During the September 2008 Floods
in the Belford Catchment, Northumberland. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3, 285 - 295.
