Votre recherche

Abstract In a rapidly changing world, what is today an unprecedented extreme may soon become the norm. As a result, extreme‐related disasters are expected to become more frequent and intense. This will have widespread socio‐economic consequences and affect the ability of different societal groups to recover from and adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions. Therefore, there is the need to decipher the relation between genesis of unprecedented events, accumulation and distribution of risk, and recovery trajectories across different societal groups. Here, we develop an analytical approach to unravel the complexity of future extremes and multiscalar societal responses—from households to national governments and from immediate impacts to longer term recovery. This requires creating new forms of knowledge that integrate analyses of the past—that is, structural causes and political processes of risk accumulation and differentiated recovery trajectories—with plausible scenarios of future environmental extremes grounded in the event‐specific literature. We specifically seek to combine the physical characteristics of the extremes with examinations of how culture, politics, power, and policy visions shape societal responses to unprecedented events, and interpret the events as social‐environmental extremes. This new approach, at the nexus between social and natural sciences, has the concrete advantage of providing an impact‐focused vision of future social‐environmental risks, beyond what is achievable within conventional disciplinary boundaries. In this paper, we focus on extreme flooding events and the societal responses they elicit. However, our approach is flexible and applicable to a wide range of extreme events. We see it as the first building block of a new field of research, allowing for novel and integrated theoretical explanations and forecasting of social‐environmental extremes. , Key Points We conceptualize unprecedented extremes as social‐environmental processes shaped by institutional, political, and economic change As social‐environmental extremes become more frequent, there is an urgency to unravel their genesis and the possible societal responses This approach is the first building block of a new field of research in social‐environmental extreme event forecasts , Plain Language Summary The world is seeing increases in a range of extreme events, and this increase may continue or even accelerate in the future, due to anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, it is often those who are already vulnerable that experience the biggest impacts from these extremes. Yet, there is little understanding of the possible societal responses to unprecedented events. This underscores the urgency of creating innovative approaches to develop plausible scenarios of societal responses and, in turn, mitigate hazards and reduce vulnerability and exposure to extreme events. In this commentary, we develop a truly interdisciplinary conceptual approach to better understand how different societal groups might interact with and respond to future unprecedented extreme events. We combine social science theories describing how different societal groups are affected by, and recover from, extreme events with projections from the literature identifying plausible areas at risk of unprecedented occurrences and local analyses of past extreme events. We see this as the first building block of a new field of research in forecasting social‐environmental extremes that could support governments, civil protection agencies, and civil society organizations to ensure a fairer, improved response to future events.

Abstract Natural hazard events provide opportunities for policy change to enhance disaster risk reduction (DRR), yet it remains unclear whether these events actually fulfill this transformative role around the world. Here, we investigate relationships between the frequency (number of events) and severity (fatalities, economic losses, and affected people) of natural hazards and DRR policy change in 85 countries over eight years. Our results show that frequency and severity factors are generally unassociated with improved DRR policy when controlling for income-levels, differences in starting policy values, and hazard event types. This is a robust result that accounts for event frequency and different hazard severity indicators, four baseline periods estimating hazard impacts, and multiple policy indicators. Although we show that natural hazards are unassociated with improved DRR policy globally, the study unveils variability in policy progress between countries experiencing similar levels of hazard frequency and severity.

Economic inequality is rising within many countries globally, and this can significantly influence the social vulnerability to natural hazards. We analysed income inequality and flood disasters in 67 middle- and high-income countries between 1990 and 2018 and found that unequal countries tend to suffer more flood fatalities. This study integrates geocoded mortality records from 573 major flood disasters with population and economic data to perform generalized linear mixed regression modelling. Our results show that the significant association between income inequality and flood mortality persists after accounting for the per-capita real gross domestic product, population size in flood-affected regions and other potentially confounding variables. The protective effect of increasing gross domestic product disappeared when accounting for income inequality and population size in flood-affected regions. On the basis of our results, we argue that the increasingly uneven distribution of wealth deserves more attention within international disaster-risk research and policy arenas.

Abstract Action toward strengthened disaster risk reduction (DRR) ideally builds from evidence-based policymaking to inform decisions and priorities. This is a guiding principle for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), which outlines priorities for action to reduce disaster risk. However, some of these practical guidelines conceal oversimplified or unsubstantiated claims and assumptions, what we refer to as “truisms”, which, if not properly addressed, may jeopardize the long-term goal to reduce disaster risks. Thus far, much DRR research has focused on ways to bridge the gap between science and practice while devoting less attention to the premises that shape the understanding of DRR issues. In this article, written in the spirit of a perspective piece on the state of the DRR field, we utilize the SFDRR as an illustrative case to identify and interrogate ten selected truisms, from across the social and natural sciences, that have been prevalent in shaping DRR research and practice. The ten truisms concern forecasting, loss, conflict, migration, the local level, collaboration, social capital, prevention, policy change, and risk awareness. We discuss central claims associated with each truism, relate those claims to insights in recent DRR scholarship, and end with suggestions for developing the field through advances in conceptualization, measurement, and causal inference.

Abstract Predicting floods and droughts is essential to inform the development of policy in water management, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Yet, hydrological predictions are highly uncertain, while the frequency, severity and spatial distribution of extreme events are further complicated by the increasing impact of human activities on the water cycle. In this commentary, we argue that four main aspects characterizing the complexity of human‐water systems should be explicitly addressed: feedbacks, scales, tradeoffs and inequalities. We propose the integration of multiple research methods as a way to cope with complexity and develop policy‐relevant science. , Plain Language Summary Several governments today claim to be following the science in addressing crises caused by the occurrence of extreme events, such as floods and droughts, or the emergence of global threats, such as climate change and COVID‐19. In this commentary, we show that there are no universal answers to apparently simple questions such as: Do levees reduce flood risk? Do reservoirs alleviate droughts? We argue that the best science we have consists of a plurality of legitimate interpretations and a range of foresights, which can be enriched by integrating multiple disciplines and research methods. , Key Points Accounting for both power relations and cognitive heuristics is key to unravel the interplay of floods, droughts and human societies Flood and drought predictions are complicated by the increasing impact of human activities on the water cycle We propose the integration of multiple research methods as a way to cope with uncertainty and develop policy‐relevant science

Abstract Risk management has reduced vulnerability to floods and droughts globally 1,2 , yet their impacts are still increasing 3 . An improved understanding of the causes of changing impacts is therefore needed, but has been hampered by a lack of empirical data 4,5 . On the basis of a global dataset of 45 pairs of events that occurred within the same area, we show that risk management generally reduces the impacts of floods and droughts but faces difficulties in reducing the impacts of unprecedented events of a magnitude not previously experienced. If the second event was much more hazardous than the first, its impact was almost always higher. This is because management was not designed to deal with such extreme events: for example, they exceeded the design levels of levees and reservoirs. In two success stories, the impact of the second, more hazardous, event was lower, as a result of improved risk management governance and high investment in integrated management. The observed difficulty of managing unprecedented events is alarming, given that more extreme hydrological events are projected owing to climate change 3 .