Votre recherche

Flood risk management requires to comprehensively assess how policy strategies may affect individuals and communities. However, policy development and implementation often downplay or even increase social inequality. Analysis of the social and societal implications of strategies and implementation projects to manage flood hazards is still in its infancy. To close this gap, this chapter critically questions the roles of social justice and their political implications for flood risk management with regard to resilience. The chapter discusses and argues how different theoretical concepts as well as different perspectives on justice (e.g. social, environmental and climate justice) and resilience in flood risk management are related. There is a strong need to have a broader and more in-depth discussion about the role of justice in the current resilience debate. Finally, the chapter presents the outline of a future research agenda.

Abstract There has been an upsurge in studies of flood risk governance (FRG): steering and decision‐making by public and private actors as a complement to risk assessments and technical management options. The scholarly debate is, however, highly fragmented, complicating the production of cumulative insights. To address this knowledge gap, we used six governance strategies for achieving flood resilience that previously have been put forward as a conceptual framework to review 121 articles published between 2016 and 2019, complemented with insights contained in recent overview articles, to gauge the state‐of‐the‐art in FRG literature: to (a) diversify flood risk management strategies; (b) align the strategies; (c) adequately involve private actors, including citizens; (d) put an adequate rule system in place; (e) cater for sufficient monetary and non‐monetary resources; (f) inspire an open and inclusive normative debate. We found, first, that literature is producing insights on increasingly technically advanced risk assessments and agent‐based models but societal debate on justice in flood risk governance is getting attention. A clearly emerging topic is that of citizen engagement in flood risk governance. Second, the geographical focus of the studies is still skewed toward the Global North. To make progress in understanding flood risk governance for better resilience more systematic and comparative empirical assessments of flood risk governance in order to derive generalizable lessons while better taking into account the context‐specificity of FRG. Testing flood risk governance solutions against comparative cases, by balancing the geographical scope of research efforts, and enhancing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary working is a way to deliver knowledge for more resilience. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Engineering Water > Planning Water

Human exposure to floods continues to increase, driven by changes in hydrology and land use. Adverse impacts amplify for socially vulnerable populations, who disproportionately inhabit flood-prone areas. This study explores the geography of flood exposure and social vulnerability in the conterminous United States based on spatial analysis of fluvial and pluvial flood extent, land cover, and social vulnerability. Using bivariate Local Indicators of Spatial Association, we map hotspots where high flood exposure and high social vulnerability converge and identify dominant indicators of social vulnerability within these places. The hotspots, home to approximately 19 million people, occur predominantly in rural areas and across the US South. Mobile homes and racial minorities are most overrepresented in hotspots compared to elsewhere. The results identify priority locations where interventions can mitigate both physical and social aspects of flood vulnerability. The variables that most distinguish the clusters are used to develop an indicator set of social vulnerability to flood exposure. Understanding who is most exposed to floods and where, can be used to tailor mitigation strategies to target those most in need.

Based on the Yearbook of Meteorological Disasters in China, we analyzed the spatiotemporal variations in major meteorological disaster (MD) losses at the provincial scale during 2001–2020 to determine the spatiotemporal variations in MDs and vulnerability in China. Our results suggest that the impacts of MDs, including floods, droughts, hail and strong winds (HSs), low temperature and frosts (LTFs), and typhoons, have been substantial in China. MDs in China affect an average of 316.3 million people and 34.3 million hectares of crops each year, causing 1,739 deaths and costing 372.3 billion yuan in direct economic losses (DELs). Floods and droughts affected more of the population in China than the other MDs. Fatalities and DELs were mainly caused by floods, and the affected crop area was mainly impacted by drought. The national average MD losses decreased significantly, except for DELs. The trends in the affected population and crop area were mainly caused by droughts, and the trends in fatalities and DELs were dominated by floods. Floods and typhoons showed increasing influence in the last two decades relative to other disasters. The annual mean and long-term trends in MD losses exhibited regional heterogeneity and were subject to different dominant hazards in different regions. The disaster losses and their trends in southeastern China were mainly attributed to typhoons. The affected population, crop area, and DELs were all significantly and positively correlated with exposure. The vulnerability of the population, crops, and economy tended to decrease. Economic development reduced the vulnerability of the population and economy but showed no significant influence on the vulnerability of crops. Our findings suggest that more focus should be placed on the impacts of floods and typhoons and that socioeconomic development has an important influence on the vulnerability of the population and economy. These results provide a foundation for designing effective disaster prevention and mitigation measures.

Abstract This study integrates novel data on 100-year flood hazard extents, exposure of residential properties, and place-based social vulnerability to comprehensively assess and compare flood risk between Indigenous communities living on 985 reserve lands and other Canadian communities across 3701 census subdivisions. National-scale exposure of residential properties to fluvial, pluvial, and coastal flooding was estimated at the 100-year return period. A social vulnerability index (SVI) was developed and included 49 variables from the national census that represent demographic, social, economic, cultural, and infrastructure/community indicators of vulnerability. Geographic information system-based bivariate choropleth mapping of the composite SVI scores and of flood exposure of residential properties and population was completed to assess the spatial variation of flood risk. We found that about 81% of the 985 Indigenous land reserves had some flood exposure that impacted either population or residential properties. Our analysis indicates that residential property-level flood exposure is similar between non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities, but socioeconomic vulnerability is higher on reserve lands, which confirms that the overall risk of Indigenous communities is higher. Findings suggest the need for more local verification of flood risk in Indigenous communities to address uncertainty in national scale analysis.

This paper finds that social differentiation in flood impacts is relatively small soon after a flood, with some surprising results such as professionals and homeowners badly affected in the short‐term – but widens over time, with socially disadvantaged groups displaying less recovery. The paper concludes that vulnerability and resilience to flooding are sensitive to financial resources, institutional support (chiefly from a landlord), and capacity to deal with disruption (chiefly time availability, which is low among professionals and high among retired people). An implication of these findings is that existing indices of flood vulnerability that use multiple measures of social deprivation should be used with caution, as not all conventional aspects of social deprivation are necessarily associated with greater vulnerability to flood impacts. , This paper reports household questionnaire survey results on vulnerability and resilience to flooding from one of the largest and most representative samples ( n  = 593) of households up to 12 years after they were flooded, and is one of the first to provide detailed analysis of social differentiation in long‐term flood impacts. A novel finding is that social differentiation in flood impacts is relatively small soon after a flood, but widens over time, with socially disadvantaged groups displaying less recovery. The patterns of social differentiation in vulnerability and resilience to flooding differ markedly according to the type and timescale of the impact, with some normally socially advantaged groups (e.g., professionals and homeowners) being most vulnerable to short‐term impacts. Consistent with some existing studies, we found that older residents (age 70+) have greater resilience to flood impacts, although our sample may not capture the frailest individuals. As in previous research, low income is linked to lower resilience, particularly in the long term. We find that prior experience of flooding, despite enhancing preparedness, overall erodes rather than enhances resilience to flooding. Flood warnings are effective at reducing vulnerability to short‐term impacts. Underlying influences on resilience to natural disasters are complex and may only be revealed by multivariate analysis and not always be evident in simple observed patterns. The paper concludes that vulnerability and resilience to flooding are sensitive to financial resources, institutional support (chiefly from a landlord), and capacity to deal with disruption (chiefly time availability, which is low among professionals and high among retired people). An implication of these findings is that existing indices of flood vulnerability that use multiple measures of social deprivation should be used with caution, as not all conventional aspects of social deprivation are necessarily associated with greater vulnerability to flood impacts.