This paper is the outcome of a community initiative to identify major unsolved scientific problems in hydrology motivated by a need for stronger harmonisation of research efforts. The procedure involved a public consultation through online media, followed by two workshops through which a large number of potential science questions were collated, prioritised, and synthesised. In spite of the diversity of the participants (230 scientists in total), the process revealed much about community priorities and the state of our science: a preference for continuity in research questions rather than radical departures or redirections from past and current work. Questions remain focused on the process-based understanding of hydrological variability and causality at all space and time scales. Increased attention to environmental change drives a new emphasis on understanding how change propagates across interfaces within the hydrological system and across disciplinary boundaries. In particular, the expansion of the human footprint raises a new set of questions related to human interactions with nature and water cycle feedbacks in the context of complex water management problems. We hope that this reflection and synthesis of the 23 unsolved problems in hydrology will help guide research efforts for some years to come. ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, empirical data are used to estimate the parameters of a sociohydrological flood risk model. The proposed model, which describes the interactions between floods, settlement density, awareness, preparedness, and flood loss, is based on the literature. Data for the case study of Dresden, Germany, over a period of 200 years, are used to estimate the model parameters through Bayesian inference. The credibility bounds of their estimates are small, even though the data are rather uncertain. A sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the value of the different data sources in estimating the model parameters. In general, the estimated parameters are less biased when using data at the end of the modeled period. Data about flood awareness are the most important to correctly estimate the parameters of this model and to correctly model the system dynamics. Using more data for other variables cannot compensate for the absence of awareness data. More generally, the absence of data mostly affects the estimation of the parameters that are directly related to the variable for which data are missing. This paper demonstrates that combining sociohydrological modeling and empirical data gives additional insights into the sociohydrological system, such as quantifying the forgetfulness of the society, which would otherwise not be easily achieved by sociohydrological models without data or by standard statistical analysis of empirical data.

Abstract. One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as levee effect, safe development paradox or safety dilemma. In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of structural flood protection, and then we propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk.

Risk management has reduced vulnerability to floods and droughts globally1,2, yet their impacts are still increasing3. An improved understanding of the causes of changing impacts is therefore needed, but has been hampered by a lack of empirical data4,5. On the basis of a global dataset of 45 pairs of events that occurred within the same area, we show that risk management generally reduces the impacts of floods and droughts but faces difficulties in reducing the impacts of unprecedented events of a magnitude not previously experienced. If the second event was much more hazardous than the first, its impact was almost always higher. This is because management was not designed to deal with such extreme events: for example, they exceeded the design levels of levees and reservoirs. In two success stories, the impact of the second, more hazardous, event was lower, as a result of improved risk management governance and high investment in integrated management. The observed difficulty of managing unprecedented events is alarming, given that more extreme hydrological events are projected owing to climate change3.

No abstract

Socio-hydrological flood risk models describe the temporal co-evolution of coupled human-flood systems. However, most models oversimplify the flood loss processes and do not consider companies' substantial contribution to total losses. This work presents a socio-hydrological flood risk model for companies that focuses on changes in vulnerability. In addition, we augment the socio-hydrological model with a processoriented, sector-specific loss model in order to capture damage processes more realistically. In a case study, we simulate the historical flood risk dynamics of companies in the floodplain of Dresden, Germany, over the course of 120 years. Our analysis suggests that the companies in Dresden increase their exposure more cautiously than private households and decrease their vulnerability more actively through private precaution. The augmentation, consisting of informative predictors, a refined probabilistic model, and the incorporation of additional data, improves the accuracy and reliability of the flood loss estimates and reduces their uncertainty.

Abstract. One common approach to cope with floods is the implementation of structural flood protection measures, such as levees or flood-control reservoirs, which substantially reduce the probability of flooding at the time of implementation. Numerous scholars have problematized this approach. They have shown that increasing the levels of flood protection can attract more settlements and high-value assets in the areas protected by the new measures. Other studies have explored how structural measures can generate a sense of complacency, which can act to reduce preparedness. These paradoxical risk changes have been described as levee effect, safe development paradox or safety dilemma. In this commentary, we briefly review this phenomenon, by critically analysing the intended benefits and unintended effects of flood protection with two main examples, and then propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to uncover these paradoxical dynamics of risk.

Abstract. As the adverse impacts of hydrological extremes increase in many regions of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of changes in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management and climate adaptation. However, there is currently a lack of comprehensive, empirical data about the processes, interactions, and feedbacks in complex human–water systems leading to flood and drought impacts. Here we present a benchmark dataset containing socio-hydrological data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area. The 45 paired events occurred in 42 different study areas and cover a wide range of socio-economic and hydro-climatic conditions. The dataset is unique in covering both floods and droughts, in the number of cases assessed and in the quantity of socio-hydrological data. The benchmark dataset comprises (1) detailed review-style reports about the events and key processes between the two events of a pair; (2) the key data table containing variables that assess the indicators which characterize management shortcomings, hazard, exposure, vulnerability, and impacts of all events; and (3) a table of the indicators of change that indicate the differences between the first and second event of a pair. The advantages of the dataset are that it enables comparative analyses across all the paired events based on the indicators of change and allows for detailed context- and location-specific assessments based on the extensive data and reports of the individual study areas. The dataset can be used by the scientific community for exploratory data analyses, e.g. focused on causal links between risk management; changes in hazard, exposure and vulnerability; and flood or drought impacts. The data can also be used for the development, calibration, and validation of socio-hydrological models. The dataset is available to the public through the GFZ Data Services (Kreibich et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.5880/GFZ.4.4.2023.001).