Natural flood management (NFM), or working with natural processes, is a growing flood risk management method in the UK, Europe and worldwide. However, unlike the current dominant technical flood management, it lacks an established evidence base of flood risk parameters. This lack of evidence base can limit the uptake of NFM as a flood management method. This paper critically evaluates examples of NFM and wider relevant literature in order to identify NFM knowledge gaps and suggest how to overcome these. The UK is used as a microcosm of different environments for diverse examples. The sections include: land cover, land management, landscape interactions and trade-offs, evaluating the wider benefits of NFM and, finally, scaling from plot to catchment. This concludes in a suggested framework for a new approach to NFM research, which encompasses spatial scales, interactions and trade-offs of NFM and consistency of reporting results. Widening the NFM empirical evidence base should be seen as an opportunity for a new approach to flood research through exploring new habitats and new flood resilience methods.

在英国，欧洲和全球范围内，自然洪水管理（NFM）或与自然过程一起工作是一种日益增长的洪水风险管理方法。但是，与当前占主导地位的技术洪水管理不同，它缺乏洪水风险参数的既定证据基础。缺乏证据基础会限制采用NFM作为洪水管理方法。本文批判性地评估了NFM的例子和更广泛的相关文献，以识别NFM知识差距并提出如何克服这些知识差距的建议。英国被用作各种示例的不同环境的缩影。这些部分包括：土地覆盖，土地管理，景观相互作用和权衡，评估NFM的广泛利益，最后，从样地扩展到集水区。以上结论是针对NFM研究新方法的建议框架，其中包括NFM的空间尺度，相互作用和权衡以及报告结果的一致性。应当将扩大NFM的经验证据基础看作是通过探索新的生境和新的抗洪能力的方法来进行洪水研究的新方法的机会。