Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Increased human and economic losses from river flooding with anthropogenic warming

An Author Correction to this article was published on 11 September 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

River floods are among some of the costliest natural disasters1, but their socio-economic impacts under contrasting warming levels remain little explored2. Here, using a multi-model framework, we estimate human losses, direct economic damage and subsequent indirect impacts (welfare losses) under a range of temperature (1.5 °C, 2 °C and 3 °C warming)3 and socio-economic scenarios, assuming current vulnerability levels and in the absence of future adaptation. With temperature increases of 1.5 °C, depending on the socio-economic scenario, it is found that human losses from flooding could rise by 70–83%, direct flood damage by 160–240%, with a relative welfare reduction between 0.23 and 0.29%. In a 2 °C world, by contrast, the death toll is 50% higher, direct economic damage doubles and welfare losses grow to 0.4%. Impacts are notably higher under 3 C warming, but at the same time, variability between ensemble members also increases, leading to greater uncertainty regarding flood impacts at higher warming levels. Flood impacts are further shown to have an uneven regional distribution, with the greatest losses observed in the Asian continent at all analysed warming levels. It is clear that increased adaptation and mitigation efforts—perhaps through infrastructural investment4—are needed to offset increasing risk of river floods in the future.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Impacts on the population under the SSP5 scenario.
Fig. 2: Direct flood damages for the baseline period and future warming levels under the SSP5 scenario.
Fig. 3: Welfare losses for future warming levels under the SSP5 scenario.

Change history

  • 11 September 2018

    In the version of this Letter originally published, the affiliation for Yukiko Hirabayashi was mistakenly given as ‘Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyō, Japan’. It should have read ‘Department of Civil Engineering, Shibaura Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan’. This has now been corrected.

References

  1. 1.

    The Human Cost Of Natural Disasters 2015: A Global Perspective (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, 2015).

  2. 2.

    Alfieri, L. et al. Global projections of river flood risk in a warmer world. Earth's Future 5, 171–182 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9 (UNFCC, 2015).

  4. 4.

    Ward, P. J. et al. A global framework for future costs and benefits of river-flood protection in urban areas. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 642–646 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Koks, E. E. & Thissen, M. A. Multiregional impact assessment model for disaster analysis. Econ. Syst. Res. 28, 429–449 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jongman, B., Ward, P. J. & Aerts, J. C. J. H. Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: long term trends and changes. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 823–835 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Tanoue, M., Hirabayashi, Y. & Ikeuchi, H. Global-scale river flood vulnerability in the last 50 years. Sci. Rep. 6, 36021 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Prein, A. F. et al. The future intensification of hourly precipitation extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 48–52 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015).

  10. 10.

    Hirabayashi, Y. et al. Global flood risk under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 816–821 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Arnell, N. W. & Gosling, S. N. The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale. Climatic Change 134, 387–401 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Jongman, B. et al. Declining vulnerability to river floods and the global benefits of adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E2271–E2280 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Winsemius, H. C. et al. Global drivers of future river flood risk. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 381–385 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ward, P. J. et al. Strong influence of El Niño Southern Oscillation on flood risk around the world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15659–15664 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Meyer, V. et al. Review article: assessing the costs of natural hazards-state of the art and knowledge gaps. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 1351–1373 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fankhauser, S. & Tol, R. S. J. On climate change and economic growth. Resour. Energy Econ. 27, 1–17 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hallegatte, S. An adaptive regional input–output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal. 28, 779–799 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ciscar, J.-C. et al. Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 2678–2683 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    NatCatSERVICE (Munich RE, accessed 2 December 2016); https://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/business/non-life/natcatservice/index.html

  20. 20.

    Aggregate Effect of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions: An Update FCCC/CP/2016/2 (UNFCC, 2016).

  21. 21.

    Dankers, R. et al. First look at changes in flood hazard in the inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project ensemble. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3257–3261 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Fouré, J., Bénassy-Quéré, A. & Fontagné, L. Modelling the world economy at the 2050 horizon. Econ. Transit. 21, 617–654 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wang, Z. et al. Scenario dependence of future changes in climate extremes under 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming. Sci. Rep. 7, 46432 (2017).

  24. 24.

    Nordhaus, W. Critical assumptions in the Stern Review on climate change. Science 317, 201–202 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Stern, N. & Taylor, C. Climate change: risk, ethics, and the Stern Review. Science 317, 203–204 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Value Added (% of GDP) (World Bank & OECD, accessed 10 April 2017); http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS

  27. 27.

    Schenker, O. Exchanging goods and damages: the role of trade on the distribution of climate change costs. Environ. Resour. Econ. 54, 261–282 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Wenger, C. Better use and management of levees: reducing flood risk in a changing climate. Environ. Rev. 23, 240–255 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Alfieri, L., Feyen, L. & Di Baldassarre, G. Increasing flood risk under Climate Change: a pan-European assessment of the benefits of four adaptation strategies. Climatic Change 136, 507–521 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hudson, P., Botzen, W. J. W., Feyen, L. & Aerts, J. C. J. H. Incentivising flood risk adaptation through risk based insurance premiums: trade-offs between affordability and risk reduction. Ecol. Econ. 125, 1–13 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Alfieri, L. et al. GloFAS – global ensemble streamflow forecasting and flood early warning. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 1161–1175 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hino, M., Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 364–370 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Di Baldassarre, G. et al. Debates—perspectives on socio‐hydrology: capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes. Water Resour. Res. 51, 4770–4781 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2015).

  35. 35.

    James, R., Washington, R., Schleussner, C.-F., Rogelj, J. & Conway, D. Characterizing half-a-degree difference: a review of methods for identifying regional climate responses to global warming targets. WIREs Clim. Change 8, e457 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Pendergrass, A. G., Lehner, F., Sanderson, B. M. & Xu, Y. Does extreme precipitation intensity depend on the emissions scenario? Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 8767–8774 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Jones, B. & O’Neill, B. C. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 084003 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Fouré, J. & Fontagné, L. Long Term Socio-Economic Scenarios For Representative Concentration Pathways Defining Alternative CO 2 Emission Trajectories Report No. 2016-01 (CEPII, 2016).

  39. 39.

    van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 237–250 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Warszawski, L. et al. The inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI-MIP): project framework. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3228–3232 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J. & Piontek, F. A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach. Earth Syst. Dynam. 4, 219–236 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Yamazaki, D., Kanae, S., Kim, H. & Oki, T. A physically based description of floodplain inundation dynamics in a global river routing model. Water Resour. Res. 47, W04501 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Scussolini, P. et al. FLOPROS: an evolving global database of flood protection standards. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 1049–1061 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Winsemius, H. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Jongman, B., Ward, P. J. & Bouwman, A. A framework for global river flood risk assessments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 1871–1892 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Pesaresi, M. et al. A global human settlement layer from optical HR/VHR RS data: concept and first results. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 6, 2102–2131 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    EM-DAT (CRED, accessed on 1 March 2017); http://www.emdat.be

  48. 48.

    Huizinga, J., de Moel, H. & Szewczyk, W. Global Flood Depth-Damage Functions: Methodology And The Database With Guidelines EUR28552 EN (European Commission, 2017); https://doi.org/10.2760/16510

  49. 49.

    Bontemps, S. et al. GLOBCOVER 2009: Products Description and Validation Report (UCLouvain & ESA Team, 2011); http://due.esrin.esa.int/files/GLOBCOVER2009_Validation_Report_2.2.pdf

  50. 50.

    Samir, K. C. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).

  51. 51.

    Kharin, V. V., Zwiers, F. W., Zhang, X. & Wehner, M. Changes in temperature and precipitation extremes in the CMIP5 ensemble. Climatic Change 119, 345–357 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sillmann, J., Kharin, V. V., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. & Bronaugh, D. Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: Part 1. Model evaluation in the present climate. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 1716–1733 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Zhao, F. et al. The critical role of the routing scheme in simulating peak river discharge in global hydrological models. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 075003 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no. 603864 (HELIX: High-End cLimate Impacts and eXtremes; www.helixclimate.eu). Y.H. received the Global Environmental Research Fund (S-14) from the Japan Ministry of Environment. We further thank Munich Re for access to the NatCatSERVICE database and the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters for access to the Emergency Events Database.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

L.F. and J.-C.C. designed the flood risk modelling framework. F.D. and L.A. computed direct socio-economic impacts and I.M., W.S. and J.-C.C. calculated economic impacts on welfare. F.Z. and K.F. performed flood simulations and produced inundation maps. Y.H. contributed to the calculation of mortality. A.B. produced exposure maps and designed the figures. R.A.B. developed the SWL approach. F.D. performed validation exercises. All authors contributed to the writing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Dottori.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–10, Supplementary Figures 1–8, Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results, Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary References

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dottori, F., Szewczyk, W., Ciscar, JC. et al. Increased human and economic losses from river flooding with anthropogenic warming. Nature Clim Change 8, 781–786 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0257-z

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing