When flooding strikes, it can devastate vast areas, taking lives, homes and possessions with it.
Multiple factors affect the scale of the social and economic damage that flooding causes, such as climate change, land-use change and the flood protection measures in place.
In a new study, published in Science Advances, my colleagues and I attempt to disentangle the factors contributing to more than 1,700 floods in Europe over 1950-2020.
Our findings show that there has been an overall reduction in deaths and economic damage over this 70-year period – even though population and economic growth means the maximum value of possible losses has increased.
This is linked to the extent to which society has adapted to climate change.
Our study finds that – in most regions – flood impacts have been affected primarily by direct human actions, such as land-use change, vulnerability reduction and catchment alteration, rather than long-term changes to river levels or sea levels.
Other factors, including climate change and alterations to river catchments, had an important role in certain places, but were not a factor on a continent-wide scale.
What influences flood losses?
Dozens of floods occur in Europe every year, though the magnitude of the socioeconomic impacts they cause varies considerably from year to year.
Floods can happen in any country, though they are less common in north-eastern Europe, especially since climate change has reduced snow cover and, hence, reduced spring snowmelt. In the hot and mountainous south of Europe, flash floods are a major risk, causing most fatalities in Europe. In north-western Europe the risk of coastal flooding, increased by global sea level rise, is higher than in other parts of the continent.
Our study looks at 1,729 floods that took place across Europe over a 70 year-period, drawn from the Historical Analysis of Natural Hazards in Europe (HANZE) database. We estimate that this list covers the vast majority of all flood impacts in Europe since 1950.
We find that, in absolute terms, direct economic damage from floods in Europe has increased considerably, from an estimated €37bn in the 1950s (at 2020 prices) to €92bn in the 2000s and €71bn in 2010s.
Yet, in relative terms, the annual losses from floods have fallen. Direct economic damage from floods fell to 0.04% of Europe’s gross domestic product (GDP) in the 2010s, down from 0.11% in the 1950s.
Meanwhile, the risk of dying in a flood has also declined more than six-fold since the 1950s.
Six long-term drivers
First, it is worth noting that each of the 1,729 events in our study were the result of a unique combination of natural and socioeconomic factors under various flood management regimes.
However, we can explore how trends in economic and social damages from floods across Europe have been influenced by different drivers. For this, we turn to the evolving science of attribution research.
Extreme weather attribution research covers a diverse set of qualitative and quantitative approaches to estimate the contribution of individual drivers – such as climate change or socioeconomic factors – to observed impacts. Most studies focus on attribution to climate change, but such approaches are often insufficient to explain the magnitude of flood losses.
Our study investigates six long-term drivers that could have explained the trends in flood impacts in Europe over a 70-year period. These are:
- Long-term climate change
- Human interventions in river catchments
- Population and economic growth
- Land-use change
- Flood protection levels
- Flood vulnerability
To do so, we use hydrological and socioeconomic models driven by observations of climate, economic and other trends.
In all cases, we evaluate the drivers against the climate and socioeconomic conditions of the year 1950 to capture how their importance might have changed over time.
The first driver we look at – and the one that is typically of most interest in attribution studies – is long-term changes to the climate. This includes changes in the probability of extreme river discharges, storm surges, wave heights and global sea level rise.
The study looks at both the fingerprint of human-caused climate change – the 1950-2020 period is when most of global warming has occurred – but also incorporates natural variations of the climate.
Here, we find climate change has mostly worsened flood impacts, especially for levels of economic damage.
However, there is strong variation in Europe. While climate change has led to more substantial flood impacts in north-west Europe, the inverse was true for several countries in southern Europe. This is largely due to an increase in the dryness of the climate.
Human factors
Next we look at human interventions in river catchments, such as reservoir construction and land-use change, which alter the movement and distribution of water across large areas.
Here, we find that these interventions had opposite effects.
Across Europe, land-use change contributed to larger flood impacts over the study period. This was largely due to a rapid increase in “soil sealing” – the covering of soil for housing, roads or other construction work.
However, the construction of large reservoirs – most of which were built after 1950 – has reduced flood volumes, helping to reduce flood impacts, particularly in central Europe.
Population growth has increased flood impacts in almost all countries (with the main exception being Germany because of population decline in the east of the country). In addition, economic growth means the maximum value of possible losses to floods – or “flood exposure” – has increased across the continent.
That said, when considering losses relative to the size of the economy or population, the change in spatial distribution of people becomes more important.
For example, there has been more development in floodplains than outside of them, which – when combined with structural factors, such as the shift from agriculture to industry and from industry to services – has contributed to an overall increase in flood impacts.
However, this did not occur in all countries and did not apply to fatalities, which narrowly reduced across Europe over the study period due to changes in population distribution.
Adaptation
The final two drivers investigated were related to how society has adapted to flood risks.
One method is improving structural flood protection through dykes and reservoirs. (In a 2024 study, we estimated that flood protection has improved in Europe since 1950, even if more for coastal than river floods.)
We also see this effect in this study, though it is not as pronounced. This is because we only look at floods that did occur – meaning that protection measures were not sufficient to prevent them.
Nonetheless, we find that better protection has reduced the extent and, therefore, the impact of floods in most European countries, except some in central and northern Europe.
Our final driver was vulnerability to floods, defined as the relative impact of flooding on population and assets at a given hydrological intensity.
This factor heavily depends on the level of preparedness and adaptation as well as the capacity to respond to a flood. For instance, small adaptations of buildings that prevent water from flowing into it could substantially reduce the share of the building value that is lost in the flood.
In the most recent decade, floods caused an estimated 74-75% fewer fatalities and smaller economic loss than if they happened in 1950 at the same level of exposure – thanks to lower vulnerability. This reduction was found across the continent – indicating that certain universal changes were responsible for this process.
Our study was not able to link this progress to individual measures, but obvious candidates are creation of early warning systems, more capable emergency services, improved disaster response and uptake of private precautionary measures by households and companies after previous experiences of flooding.
The figure below shows the contribution of the six drivers (from left to right) for three types of impacts: fatalities (top), population affected (middle) and economic losses (bottom) to all floods that have occurred in each country between 1950 and 2020.
The shading indicates whether the driver increased (red) or decreased (blue) impacts.
Attribution of contribution to impacts (in rows) of different drivers (A to F), by country, expressed as percent change, relative to the counterfactual scenario of no change in the individual driver since 1950. Source: Paprotny, D et al. (2025)
Solutions reaching their limit?
Our findings indicate the crucial role that adaptation has had on containing growth in flood losses that could have been induced by a larger population and economy.
Still, this positive development should not be taken for granted. Our results show a considerable slowdown in the reduction of losses from better flood protection or lower levels of vulnerability in the most recent two decades. This could indicate that existing solutions are reaching their limits.
However, we find that southern and eastern Europe still has higher vulnerability compared with western Europe – showing potential for further improvements in those regions.
Recent major floods, such as the 2021 event in western Europe, have raised questions about existing levels of preparedness, while highlighting the role of climate change in increasing the impacts of those events.
Our study shows that adaptation works in Europe, but that greater efforts will be needed to ensure it continues to do so.
The post Guest post: How adaptation has cut flood deaths and losses in Europe appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How adaptation has cut flood deaths and losses in Europe
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines
With the COP31 climate summit in Turkey looming, all eyes are on China to see what the country will push for in the negotiations.
At COP30 last year, China helped to secure a “dialogue” on climate-related “unilateral trade measures”, as well as a two-year “work programme” concerning climate finance.
The nation also championed south-south cooperation throughout the conference and co-led a summit on methane, alongside Brazil and the UK.
In a recent press conference, China’s environment vice-minister Li Gao noted the need to “uphold multilateralism” and send a “clear political signal” that the global community is united around climate action.