ArticleWater resources management (Dordrecht, Netherlands)2026
The Cost of Bad Timing: How Phenology and Frequency Determine Agricultural Flood Risk.
Article in Water resources management (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate valuation of flood risk is fundamental to efficient resource allocation, insurance pricing, and public investment in agriculture. Standard economic models, which often link asset damage directly to hazard magnitude, fail to capture the unique vulnerability of agricultural capital-where the value of standing crops is contingent upon phenological stage. This study develops a capital valuation framework to deconstruct the economic burden of flooding on cropland, demonstrating that the timing of a flood is a primary determinant of financial loss, often outweighing the role of physical flood magnitude. We model agricultural flood risk as expected annual damage (EAD) to crop capital, integrating hydrologic frequency analysis for a U.S. Midwest County with a phenologically-explicit damage function. This function disaggregates risk into two components: a Flood Hazard Index (FHI), quantifying flood intensity and duration across return periods, and a Flood Susceptibility Index (FSI), representing the time-sensitive depreciation rate of crop capital at different growth stages. Probability-weighted losses are summed across all flood scenarios to derive total EAD. Results reveal that the distribution of losses is heavily skewed toward high-probability, low-severity events. The 2-year and 25-year floods collectively account for approximately 45% of total EAD, despite extreme (≥ 100-year) events generating substantially larger per-event losses. Frequent floods impose the highest economic cost not because of peak discharge, but because their high likelihood of coinciding with phenologically sensitive periods is compounded by longer inundation durations-a "double liability" where occurrence probability and capital impairment duration are simultaneously maximized. Conversely, low-probability, high-severity events tend to occur outside the growing season, leaving lower-value capital exposed. These findings invert conventional risk models and carry significant implications for crop insurance design, flood mitigation investment, and agricultural capital management under climate volatility. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11269-026-04801-1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.