Modelling the hydraulics of the Carlisle 2005 flood event

The performance of a 2D numerical model of flood hydraulics is tested for a major event in Carlisle, UK, in 2005. This event is associated with a unique data set, with GPS surveyed wrack lines and flood extent surveyed 3 weeks after the flood. The Simple Finite Volume (SFV) model is used to solve the 2D Saint-Venant equations over an unstructured mesh of 30000 elements representing channel and floodplain, and allowing detailed hydraulics of flow around bridge piers and other influential features to be represented. The SFV model is also used to corroborate flows recorded for the event at two gauging stations. Calibration of Manning's n is performed with a two stage strategy, with channel values determined by calibration of the gauging station models, and floodplain values determined by optimising the fit between model results and observed water levels and flood extent for the 2005 event. RMS error for the calibrated model compared with surveyed water levels is ~±0.4m, the same order of magnitude as the estimated error in the survey data. The study demonstrates the ability of unstructured mesh hydraulic models to represent important hydraulic processes across a range of scales, with potential applications to flood risk management.

A multi-scale framework for strategic management of diffuse pollution

A multi-scale framework for decision support is presented that uses a combination of experiments, models, communication, education and decision support tools to arrive at a realistic strategy to minimise diffuse pollution. Effective partnerships between researchers and stakeholders play a key part in successful implementation of this strategy. The Decision Support Matrix (DSM) is introduced as a set of visualisations that can be used at all scales, both to inform decision making and as a communication tool in stakeholder workshops. A demonstration farm is presented and one of its fields is taken as a case study. Hydrological and nutrient flow path models are used for event based simulation (TOPCAT), catchment scale modelling (INCA) and field scale flow visualisation (TopManage). One of the DSMs; The Phosphorus Export Risk Matrix (PERM) is discussed in detail. The PERM was developed iteratively as a point of discussion in stakeholder workshops, as a decision support and education tool. The resulting interactive PERM contains a set of questions and proposed remediation measures that reflect both expert and local knowledge. Education and visualisation tools such as GIS, risk indicators, TopManage and the PERM are found to be invaluable in communicating improved farming practice to stakeholders. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Proceedings of the inaugural construction management and economics ‘Past, Present and Future’ conference CME25, 16-18 July 2007, University of Reading, UK

This conference was an unusual and interesting event. Celebrating 25 years of Construction Management and Economics provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the research that has been reported over the years, to consider where we are now, and to think about the future of academic research in this area. Hence the sub-title of this conference: “past, present and future”. Looking through these papers, some things are clear. First, the range of topics considered interesting has expanded hugely since the journal was first published. Second, the research methods are also more diverse. Third, the involvement of wider groups of stakeholder is evident. There is a danger that this might lead to dilution of the field. But my instinct has always been to argue against the notion that Construction Management and Economics represents a discipline, as such. Granted, there are plenty of university departments around the world that would justify the idea of a discipline. But the vast majority of academic departments who contribute to the life of this journal carry different names to this. Indeed, the range and breadth of methodological approaches to the research reported in Construction Management and Economics indicates that there are several different academic disciplines being brought to bear on the construction sector. Some papers are based on economics, some on psychology and others on operational research, sociology, law, statistics, information technology, and so on. This is why I maintain that construction management is not an academic discipline, but a field of study to which a range of academic disciplines are applied. This may be why it is so interesting to be involved in this journal. The problems to which the papers are applied develop and grow. But the broad topics of the earliest papers in the journal are still relevant today. What has changed a lot is our interpretation of the problems that confront the construction sector all over the world, and the methodological approaches to resolving them. There is a constant difficulty in dealing with topics as inherently practical as these. While the demands of the academic world are driven by the need for the rigorous application of sound methods, the demands of the practical world are quite different. It can be difficult to meet the needs of both sets of stakeholders at the same time. However, increasing numbers of postgraduate courses in our area result in larger numbers of practitioners with a deeper appreciation of what research is all about, and how to interpret and apply the lessons from research. It also seems that there are contributions coming not just from construction-related university departments, but also from departments with identifiable methodological traditions of their own. I like to think that our authors can publish in journals beyond the construction-related areas, to disseminate their theoretical insights into other disciplines, and to contribute to the strength of this journal by citing our articles in more mono-disciplinary journals. This would contribute to the future of the journal in a very strong and developmental way. The greatest danger we face is in excessive self-citation, i.e. referring only to sources within the CM&E literature or, worse, referring only to other articles in the same journal. The only way to ensure a strong and influential position for journals and university departments like ours is to be sure that our work is informing other academic disciplines. This is what I would see as the future, our logical next step. If, as a community of researchers, we are not producing papers that challenge and inform the fundamentals of research methods and analytical processes, then no matter how practically relevant our output is to the industry, it will remain derivative and secondary, based on the methodological insights of others. The balancing act between methodological rigour and practical relevance is a difficult one, but not, of course, a balance that has to be struck in every single paper.

Earnings management in firms seeking to be acquired

Empirical evidence regarding accrual-based earnings management around mergers and acquisitions has been setting-specific as far as target firms are concerned. This might be due to the fact that target firms cannot always anticipate an acquisition proposal, and thus lack the motive and the time necessary to manage their earnings in order to facilitate or impede the deal. In this paper, we provide clear evidence of downward earnings management by a sample of target firms that have both time and motive to engage in such actions. These are firms that publicly announce their intention to be acquired. Publicly ‘seeking a buyer’ represents a rather unusual corporate event, and we find that these firms engage in downward earnings management in the years surrounding the ‘announcement year’. To some extent, this result is explained by overrepresentation of low performance and growth among these firms, and it can be interpreted under alternative explanations. Furthermore, we show that such downward earnings management negatively affects the probability for a ‘seeking buyer’ firm to secure an acquisition within a reasonable amount of time, a possible indication of efficient diligence by prospective buyers having a preference for firms ‘seeking buyer’ with no informationally obscure earnings.