Runoff management: mitigation measures for disconnecting flow pathways in the Belford Burn catchment to reduce flood risk.

Wilkinson, M.; Quinn, PF; Benson, Ian; Welton, P

doi:10.7558/bhs.2010.ic39

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some cases, like the floods in December 2015 in the North West of England, “hard” flood mitigation measures were overwhelmed, where design standards are exceeded. The “soft” measures include changes in vegetation cover (including forestation), land management, improvements of water channels, improvements of drainage system, and diversions of water ways or rivers (for a full discussion see Wilkinson, Quinn, Benson, & Welton, ). Taking passive approaches involves doing little to control flood events and instead diverting investment to compensate victims, improving community awareness of flood risk, and subsidising insurance policies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is planting trees the solution to reducing flood risks?

Carrick

Rahim

Adjei

et al. 2018

J Flood Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flood risk and associated impacts are major societal and policy concerns following widespread flooding in December 2015, which cost the UK economy an estimated £5 billion. Increasing advocacy for alternatives to conventional hard engineering solutions is accompanied by demands for evidence. This study provides a systematic review and meta‐analysis of direct evidence for the effect of tree cover on channel discharge. The results highlighted a deficiency in direct evidence. From 7 eligible studies of 156 papers reviewed, the results show that increasing tree cover has a small statistically significant effect on reducing channel discharge. Meta‐analysis reveals that tree cover reduces channel discharge (standardised mean difference −0.35, 95%CI, −0.71 to 0.00), but the effect was variable (I2 = 81.91%), the potential for confounding was high, and publication bias is strongly suspected (Egger Test z = 3.0568, p = .002). Due to the lack of direct evidence the overall strength of evidence is low, indicating high uncertainty. Further primary research is required to understand reasons for heterogeneity and reduce uncertainty. A Bayesian network parameterised with data from the meta‐analysis supports investment in integrated catchment management, particularly on infrastructure density and water storage (reservoirs), for effective responses to flood risk.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is planting trees the solution to reducing flood risks?

Carrick

Rahim

Adjei

et al. 2018

J Flood Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus we could not confirm the positive effect of the use of drainage ditches on soil water storage capacity as mentioned by, for example, Horton (), Thomasson (), and Wilkinson et al . (). The best model explaining kurtosis of the runoff hydrographs was a multiple regression equation where SBD and FD explain 83% of its variability (Equation ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Impact of draining hilly lands on runoff and on‐site erosion: a case study from humid Ethiopia

Monsieurs

Dessie

Verhoest

et al. 2015

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of drainage ditches on farmland has an impact on erosion processes both on-site and off-site, though their environmental impacts are not unequivocal. Here we study the runoff response and related rill erosion after installing drainage ditches and assess the effects of stone bunds in north Ethiopia. Three different land management systems were studied in 10 cropland catchments around Wanzaye during the rainy season of 2013: (1) the exclusive use of drainage ditches (locally called feses), (2) the exclusive use of stone bunds, and (3) a mixture of both systems. Stone bunds are an effective soil and water conservation technique, making the land more resistant against on-site erosion, and allowing feses to be installed at a larger angle with the contour. The mean rill volumes for the 10 studied cropland catchments during the rainy season of 2013 was 3.73 ± 4.20 m 3 ha À1 corresponding to a soil loss of 5.72 ± 6.30 ton ha À1 . The establishment of feses causes larger rill volumes (R = 0.59, N = 10), although feses are perceived as the best way to avoid soil erosion when no stone bunds are present. The use of feses increases event-based runoff coefficients (RCs) on cropland from c. 5% to values up to 39%. Also, a combination of low stone bund density and high feses density results in a higher RC, whereas catchments with a high stone bund density and low feses density have a lower RC. Peak runoff discharges decrease when stone bund density increases, whereas feses density is positively related to the peak runoff discharge. A multiple linear relation in which both feses and stone bund densities are used as explanatory variable, performs best in explaining runoff hydrograph peakedness (R 2 = 83%).

show abstract

“…Capturing data during storm events is critical for presenting the evidence of RAFs to stakeholders and extremely useful for suggesting improvements to their functioning. Wilkinson et al . (2010a) analysed data for the pilot pond functioning during a double‐peaked storm event in September 2008, which indicated that the drainage rate was insufficent.…”

Section: Runoff Attenuation Features (Rafs) In the Belford Burn Catchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The construction of LWD came with an opportunistic decision to have sycamore trees removed and replaced with less intrusive suitable tree species. The LWD and associated floodplain barriers were located at six locations (15 m apart) over the reach of the stream within a wooded riparian zone (Wilkinson et al . 2010a).…”

Section: Runoff Attenuation Features (Rafs) In the Belford Burn Catchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Runoff attenuation features: a sustainable flood mitigation strategy in the Belford catchment, UK

Nicholson

Wilkinson

O’Donnell

et al. 2012

Area

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is evidence to suggest that modern rural land-use management practices have led to increased runoff production at the farm scale. There are concerns that this may have contributed to downstream flooding of towns/villages, especially during intense local storm events. This paper presents an investigation into the potential attenuation of rural runoff through the application of soft-engineered structures upstream of flood-prone settlements, through a demonstration of ongoing initiatives in the Belford catchment, Northumberland (5.7 km 2 ). The soft-engineered features that have been considered in the study include storage ponds, barriers, bunds, and the planting of vegetation and the positioning of woody debris in the riparian zone. The Belford study has been active since November 2007 and is yielding an abundance of good-quality data, including several significant flood events, on how runoff propagates through the small rural catchment and causes flooding of the village, and how flood propagation can be attenuated using Runoff Attenuation Features (RAFs). Plate 1 RAF (Example 1) -Full of water following a storm event in September 2008 (left: from Wilkinson et al. 2010b; right: demonstrating permeability) 466 Nicholson et al.

show abstract

Runoff management: mitigation measures for disconnecting flow pathways in the Belford Burn catchment to reduce flood risk.

Cited by 11 publications

References 5 publications

Is planting trees the solution to reducing flood risks?

Is planting trees the solution to reducing flood risks?

Impact of draining hilly lands on runoff and on‐site erosion: a case study from humid Ethiopia

Runoff attenuation features: a sustainable flood mitigation strategy in the Belford catchment, UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About