Insurance and compensation are cited as critical elements of resilience to natural and non-natural hazards alike. As a strategy of risk management, it emphasises peace of mind, financial recompense and the swift restoration of a ‘business as usual’ status for civil, social and commercial life. Yet despite the contribution of insurance to risk management, the synergies with progressive or adaptive articulations of resilience are not sufficiently explicated. This paper explores the fundamental contradictions of insurance as a form of resilience through a study of flood risk management. It demonstrates how insurance regimes serve to structurally embed risky behaviour and inhibit change after detrimental events. As such, transformative interpretations of resilience conflict with the long-standing principles and operational norms of insurance that privilege normality. The paper concludes that, despite its currency within resilience discourses, insurance is maladaptive and that insurance regimes reinforce exposure and vulnerability through underwriting a return to the ‘status-quo’ rather than enabling adaptive behaviour.

In 2012, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) moved from a vulnerability to a risk-based conception of climate change adaptation. However, there are few examples of work that translates this approach into climate change adaptation practice, in order to demonstrate the practical utility of following a risk-based approach to adapting to climate change. The paper explores critically the differing conceptions of vulnerability and risk across the literature relating to disaster risk management and climate change adaptation. The paper also examines a selection of spatially focused climate change vulnerability and risk assessment methodologies in this context. In doing so, we identify issues with the availability of spatial data to enable spatial risk-based climate change assessments. We argue that the concept of risk is potentially favorable in helping cities to understand the challenges posed by climate change, identify adaptation options, and build resilience to the changing climate. However, we suggest that change is needed in the way that practitioners and policymakers engage with risk-based concepts if they are to be embed into climate change adaptation activities.

This article discusses the findings of an Arts and Humanities Research Council project researching how music festival communities in Scotland can address issues of environmental sustainability and climate change. It investigates how music festival communities are constructed with a focus on what role, if any, they might play in responding to the global challenge of environmental sustainability. Using music festivals in Scotland as a case study, we employed a variety of research methods to interrogate different constituents in music festival communities about their views and behaviours regarding climate change and environmental sustainability. These included festival audiences via onsite questionnaires; festival organisers and promoters via interviews and focus groups; and musicians via creative practice-led research. We conclude that rather than necessarily being a site for progressive or utopian socio-cultural experimentation (as they are occasionally portrayed in festival literature), music festival communities engage in complex and often contradictory behaviours when it comes to responding to – and making sense of – their own complicity in social challenges such as climate change.

Background: Natural flood management (NFM) measures seek to protect, enhance, emulate, or restore the natural function of rivers as part of approaches to flood risk management (FRM). While there is agreement in both academic and practice/policy literature that NFM, in a general sense, should be part of a holistic FRM strategy to address current and future flood risk, the specifics of how to consistently implement NFM successfully in practice are less well known. This is particularly acute for practitioners in the UK given the nature of the UK’s biophysical and socio-political context. There is a recognition that existing reviews of NFM effectiveness in the UK tend to focus on the natural science basis and it is unclear how studies account for climate change. Further, reviews tend to focus only on UK studies. This systematic map aims to highlight the way in which existing NFM studies, from different disciplinary backgrounds and across Europe, evaluate effectiveness, and the extent to which they account for climate change. This knowledge can help to make recommendations for future areas of research where the multiple issues around understanding effectiveness can be synthesised, and where climate change is systematically taken into account. Methods: This systematic map protocol addresses the following question: what approaches exist to evaluate the effectiveness of UK-relevant natural flood management measures? The protocol details the methodology that will be used to conduct a systematic map of the range of peer-reviewed journal papers, policy documents, guidance, and other forms of grey literature which currently exist on NFM to give an overview on the way in which the effectiveness of NFM is conceived. The methods detail the search strategy employed for gathering items across the peer-reviewed academic literature and grey literature. Additionally, the methods outline how the reviewers will approach article screening, and the eligibility criteria to include/exclude articles. The methods section also details the steps taken to ensure consistency across all reviewers, the data coding strategy, and methods for presenting the final systematic map. Together, the methods employed will help to identify current knowledge gaps, and will enable recommendations to be made for future research.