Preface: Advances in flood risk assessment and management

Floods are among Earth's most common and most destructive natural hazards, affecting human lives and properties directly and indirectly around the world. The frequency and magnitude of extreme flooding have been increasing in many parts of the world in recent decades (see, e.g. Berghuijs et al., 2017; Blöschl et al., 2019a; Marijnissen et al., 2019), hampering human well-being and economic growth in both developed and developing countries. Flood risk management carries out the flood risk assessment and uses appropriate resources (human, finance, science and technology, and nature) to control the flood risk (Han, 2011), which is an urgent challenge for the scientific and engineering communities to address. In a similar way to "Twenty-Three unsolved problems in hydrology" (Blöschl et al., 2019b), despite decades of research in this field, there are still many unsolved problems in floods as well. This special issue "Flood Risk Assessment and Management" is an outcome of the session "Flood Risk Assessment and Management" in the Naturals Hazards Division at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly held in Vienna, Austria. The session series has been organized annually at EGU since 2018. This special issue presents a wide range of in-depth research studies based on flood modelling (including hydrological modelling and hydrodynamic modelling), hazard mapping, flood damage and risk assessment as well as studies that focus on flood relief prioritization, mitigation strategies and flood policies. Extraordinary floods and debris flows are also included due to dam and dike breaks and extreme storms over gullies in mountain areas. The nine articles in this special issue are broadly introduced in the following three categorie

DESIGN AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF A TRANSFORMER TANK A REVIEW PAPER

ABSTRACT

Integrated framework for soil and water conservation in Kosi River Basin

Soil loss through erosion and its subsequent deposition is considered as an important challenge for watersheds. In this paper, attempt has been made to integrate the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, rainfall climatology from merged IMD gauge-TRMM (1998–2015) and soil hydraulic parameters to delineate the highly susceptible zones of the Kosi River Basin (KRB), Bihar, India for soil erosion assessment and watershed prioritization. The soil hydraulic parameters are calculated by using the ROSETTA model. Afterwards, the analytical hierarchy process based on multi-criteria evaluation method (AHP-MCE) was employed to assign the weighting to each factor (Soil erosion, Compound Factor, Field Capacity) depending on their erosion potential. Weighted overlay analysis is then performed to generate the watershed prioritization map for soil and water conservation. The overall findings suggest that the sub-watersheds 5, 8 and 7 required utmost attention and conservative measures because of their high erodibility characteristics

Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty.Design Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.Setting Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019.Participants 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment.Intervention 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care.Outcome measures Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up.Results 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up.Conclusion The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both.Trial registration number ISRCTN21333761