A global framework for future costs and benefits of river-flood protection in urban areas

By Philip J. Ward, Brenden Jongman, Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, Paul D. Bates, W. Botzen, Andres Diaz Loaiza, Stéphane Hallegatte, J. Kind, J. Kwadijk, Paulo Scussolini and 1 more. Nature Climate Change, 2017

321 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change, Water Science and Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ca6af80535ebf731d9f6e5355623b7f9bd3a2904

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

1. W. Botzen
2. O. Deschenes

In Global and Planetary Change

1. T. Wahl
2. M. Sanders
3. W. Botzen
4. O. Deschenes
5. Philip J. Ward
6. Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts

In Water Science and Technology

1. Philip J. Ward

Citations in the corpus

• The Economic Impacts of Natural Disasters: A Review of Models and Empirical Studies (2019, methodology): “…risk estimates from catastrophe models have been used in global-scale benefit–cost analyses of dike investments and climate change adaptation funds (Ward et al. 2017), countrywide benefit–cost analyses of optimal flood protection standards in The Netherlands (Kind 2014), and benefit–cost analyses…”
• Dependence between high sea-level and high river discharge increases flood hazard in global deltas and estuaries (2018, background): “Recent advances in large-scale flood modelling enable the simulation of continuous time-series at daily to sub-daily time scales (e.g. Ward et al 2013, 2017, Muis et al 2016, Yamazaki et al 2011, Vousdoukas et al 2016, Veldkamp et al 2018).”