Good practice in risk analysis

This edition of the journal comprises papers presented at the Fouth FLOODrisk Conference. The conference was originally scheduled to be held in Budapest in June 2020. The worldwide coronavirus pandemic emerged in late 2019 and early 2020, and by the time the conference was due to take place, many countries were in ‘lockdown’, causing the postponement of the conference. The pandemic is a worldwide tragedy with millions of lives lost. In response to this threat to humanity, science was thrust to the forefront, both in terms of advice to governments on how to restrict the spread and also the remarkable speed of development and implementation of the vaccines. Previous editorials in the Journal of Flood Risk Management (De Bruijn, 2020; Montz, 2020; Priest, 2021) have highlighted parallels between the management of the pandemic and flooding and the resilience of communities and their natural ability to adapt and overcome adversity. Desk-based workers all over the world quickly adapted to virtual meetings. Although this process was not without obstacles. Who could not sympathise with, and admire the professionalism of, the US lawyer who, struggling with image filters on a video call, felt obliged to declare that he was not a cat? There will be very few readers who have not directly contributed to the rise of ‘you are on mute’ to the top of the most used phrases charts (Knorr & Schreml, 2021)! Nevertheless, so quick was the adaptation process, that this conference eventually took place in a virtual online format in June 2021. Something that would not have been considered viable prepandemic had become ‘the norm’ within the space of a year. There are of course ‘lessons to be learned’ from the pandemic that translates to all aspects of risk analysis and management. It is interesting to note the risk assessment process adopted by some countries has been deemed deficient (Lacobucci, 2021). The deficiency identified relates to a need to plan for a range of challenging scenarios that have not happened in the past, as well as those that have. It is well-known the risk analysis process requires consideration of the likelihood and impact of all hazardous events (e.g., Bedford & Cooke, 2001). There is no option to ignore events that are complex to characterise and evaluate. It is also a well-known pitfall there can be a tendency to rely solely on historical evidence, or archetypal design events, when defining hazardous events (HSE, 2003). In this regard, it is perhaps surprising, that the wellestablished approach to representing the failure of flood defence infrastructure, using probability distributions known as fragility curves (e.g., Apel et al., 2004; Ayyub et al., 2009; Schultz et al., 2010; Simm & Tarrant, 2018; USACE, 1996; Vorogushyn et al., 2010) as part of the risk analysis process, is not universally implemented. Many flooding studies still rely on methods that have, as a prerequisite, an assumption that flood defences and related infrastructure cannot fail. With a long legacy of ageing flood defence infrastructure in many countries and an expected increase in the frequency of extreme events as a result of climate change (e.g., Kay et al., 2011; Schaller et al., 2016), widespread adoption of best practice in risk analysis, within the context of flood risk analysis, would seem prudent.