In her Editorial of June 2020, Burrell Montz touched upon many of the parallels between managing the global pandemic and flood risk management. Over the recent months, I have also been struck by many of the similarities, particularly in relation to the role of individual decision‐making and consequently the behavioural response of those at risk. When watching the recent and ongoing news about the COVID‐19 crisis and the actions of us all over these difficult months, I have been reminded of how the impact of human behaviour and our decisions matter for both our individual and collective outcomes. We are all having to make decisions every day about our exposure to risks and behavioural actions we may take to mitigate them (e.g., should I go to the supermarket later in the day as it is less busy? Should I drive to my destination, rather than take public transport? When it is best I wear a mask? Should I accept a vaccine if offered?). The behavioural response of those at risk of flooding can also be of critical importance to both individual and community impact and is a key theme running through many of the papers in this special issue.

Early considerations of the role of perceptions of risk and behaviour in natural hazards research include the ‘Human Ecology’ work of the ‘Chicago School’ in the 1960s and 1970s. This seminal work by geographers, and which sparked my own interest in flooding and natural events, started the consideration of the roles and actions of individuals at risk and that the impacts of floods are as much to do with the response and coping mechanisms of both the state and the society affected as the physical processes experienced (e.g., Burton, 1965; Burton et al., 1978; Hewitt & Burton, 1971; Kates, 1962; White, 1964, 1974). Behavioural research into natural hazards has developed considerably since these early considerations and encompasses a wide variety of disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, political science, philosophy and ethics, etc.). It is widely acknowledged that the relationship between risk awareness, risk understanding, attitudes towards risk and behaviour response are extremely complex (e.g., Garvin, 2001; Slovic, 2000) and thus encouraging positive behaviour can be challenging. However, in the same way that individual responses are needed to take effective and appropriate action during the COVID‐19 crisis, individual and group responses and behaviours are also at the heart of effective flood risk management. Decisions by those at risk (and subsequent action or inaction) span the entire spectrum of flood risk management and may include, as examples, decisions and behaviour concerning: purchasing a property in a flood risk area, action taken to reduce risk, response during an event and actions taken in order to recover.

Understanding behaviour and citizens' behavioural response to risk information is equally, if not more, important as improving our understanding of the flood hazard. Whilst for instance it may be important to undertake research to improve the spatial accuracy of a flood forecast, what use is this if individuals do not believe this forecast or take action to respond effectively? Since its inception, studies in the Journal of Flood Risk Management have made significant contributions to understanding flood risk behaviours including in the areas of mitigation influencing behaviours (e.g., Becker et al., 2014; Bubeck et al., 2012; Everett et al., 2018; Slotter et al., 2020), during flood response (e.g., Diakakis et al., 2020; Enríquez‐de‐Salamanca, 2020; Jonkman & Vrijling, 2008; Neal et al., 2011; Shah et al., 2012), related to communication styles (e.g., Seebauer & Babcicky, 2018; Stephenson et al., 2018) and flood recovery (e.g., Ge et al., 2017; Tariq et al., 2014).

A number of papers in this Issue of the Journal of Flood Risk Management (Volume 14, Issue 2—June 2021) also add to this valuable collection of research about flood risk behaviour. Both Netzel et al.(2021) and Champonnois and Erdlenbruch (2021) focus on different factors that influence the willingness and uptake of individual flood risk management options in the context of pluvial floods in Germany and Southern France, respectively. Risk perception and knowledge are important determinants in both studies, whilst Netzel et al. (2021) also identify the influence of the education and housing conditions on flood risk behaviour. Additionally, Champonnois and Erdlenbruch (2021) consider the willingness to pay for measures and the economic viability of the implementation of such measures, recognising this as a significant barrier to effective uptake of measures. Barendrecht et al. (2021) in their analysis of historical flooding in England in particular focus on the role of flood experience on preparedness and the implementation of flood mitigation behaviour. They observe regional differences in their findings, which indicate that it may not only be the experience of flooding that is important to response, but also the nature and severity of that event. Finally, in their investigation of during flooding actions of individuals, Shirvani et al. (2021) present an agent‐based simulation that utilises behavioural rules to evaluate the different potential responses of both public evacuees and professional responders. Their outcomes provide useful evidence about the required number of responders and quantifies levels of flood risk reduction and can inform plans and response strategies; however, the authors also call for additional behavioural evidence to improve their modelled scenarios.

The importance of behavioural actions is only going to intensify in the future. We are increasingly asking individuals to participate in a much greater way to managing their own risk. This, in turn, means we are potentially asking them to make more complex individual decisions about their risks and what their behaviours should be. This also raises the significance of research into approaches to encourage effective flood risk management behaviours, an area that the Journal of Flood Risk Management recognises the value of and will continue to champion.

Burrell Montz在2020年6月的社论中谈到了管理全球大流行与洪水风险管理之间的许多相似之处。在最近几个月中，我也被许多相似之处所震惊，特别是在个人决策的角色以及因此有风险者的行为反应方面。当观看有关COVID-19危机以及我们在这艰难的几个月中所采取的行动的最新消息时，我想起了人类行为和我们的决定对个人和集体成果的影响。我们所有人每天都必须做出决定，以了解我们所面临的风险以及为减轻风险所可能采取的行为（例如，我应该在一天中晚些时候去超市，因为它不那么忙碌吗？我应该开车去目的地，而不是乘坐公共交通工具？最好的时候戴口罩？如果提供疫苗，我应该接受疫苗吗？）。面临洪灾风险的人的行为反应对于个人和社区的影响也都至关重要，并且是本期特刊中许多论文中贯穿的关键主题。

对风险和行为的感知在自然灾害研究中的作用的早期考虑包括1960年代和1970年代“芝加哥学校”的“人类生态学”研究。地理学家的这项开创性工作激发了我对洪水和自然事件的兴趣，开始了对处于危险中的个人的作用和行动的考虑，而洪水的影响与这两个国家的应对和应对机制都息息相关。状态和受影响的物理过程的社会经历（例如，伯顿，1965年，伯顿等人，1978年，休伊特和伯顿，1971年，凯茨，1962年;白，1964年，1974年）。自从这些早期考虑因素以来，对自然灾害的行为研究已经取得了长足的发展，涵盖了多种学科（例如，心理学，社会学，政治学，哲学和伦理学等）。人们普遍认为，风险意识，风险理解，对风险的态度与行为反应之间的关系非常复杂（例如，Garvin，2001； Slovic，2000）。），从而鼓励积极的行为可能具有挑战性。但是，就像在COVID-19危机期间需要采取个人对策以采取有效和适当的行动一样，个人和团体对策和行为也是有效的洪水风险管理的核心。处于风险之中的人的决策（以及后续的行动或不作为）涉及洪水风险管理的整个范围，并且可能包括以下决策和行为，例如：在洪水风险区域购买财产，为降低风险而采取的行动，在洪水期间的应对措施。事件和为恢复而采取的措施。

了解行为和公民对风险信息的反应对提高我们对洪水灾害的理解同样重要，甚至更多。例如，进行研究以提高洪水预报的空间准确性可能很重要，但是如果个人不相信该预报或不采取行动有效地做出反应，这有什么用呢？自成立以来，《洪水风险管理杂志》上的研究为理解洪水风险行为做出了重要贡献，包括在减轻影响行为领域（例如，Becker等人，2014年； Bubeck等人，2012年； Everett等人。 ，2018 ; Slotter等人，2020），洪水响应期间（例如，Diakakis等人，2020 ; Enriquez的-DE-萨拉曼卡，2020 ; Jonkman＆Vrijling，2008 ;尼尔等人，2011 ; Shah等人，2012），与通信相关的样式（例如，Seebauer＆Babcicky，2018； Stephenson等，2018）和洪水恢复（例如，Ge等，2017； Tariq等，2014）。

本期《洪水风险管理杂志》（第14卷，第2期-2021年6月）中的许多论文也为有关洪水风险行为的研究提供了宝贵的收藏。Netzel等人（2021）以及Champonnois和Erdlenbruch（2021）都分别关注影响德国和法国南部暴雨背景下个体洪水风险管理方案的意愿和采用的不同因素。风险知觉和知识是两项研究的重要决定因素，而Netzel等人则认为。（2021）还确定了教育和住房条件对洪水风险行为的影响。此外，尚彭诺瓦（Champonnois）和埃德伦布鲁（Erdlenbruch）（2021年）考虑是否愿意为措施付费以及实施此类措施的经济可行性，并认识到这是有效采用措施的重要障碍。Barendrecht等。（2021）在他们对英国历史洪水的分析中，特别着重于洪水经验在防备和实施减灾行为方面的作用。他们在研究结果中观察到了地区差异，这表明，不仅洪灾的经验对响应很重要，而且事件的性质和严重性也很重要。最后，Shirvani等人在对个人洪水行为的调查中。（2021年）提出了一种基于行为主体的模拟，该行为利用行为规则来评估公共撤离人员和专业响应者的不同潜在响应。其结果为所需的响应者数量提供了有用的证据，并量化了减少洪灾风险的水平，并可以为计划和响应策略提供信息；然而，作者还呼吁提供更多的行为证据，以改善他们的建模场景。

行为行动的重要性只会在未来加剧。我们越来越多地要求个人以更大的方式参与管理自己的风险。反过来，这意味着我们潜在地要求他们就他们的风险以及他们的行为应该做出更复杂的个人决定。这也提高了研究鼓励有效的洪水风险管理行为方法的研究的重要性，《洪水风险管理杂志》认识到这一领域的价值并将继续拥护这一领域。