ARTICLE DE RECHERCHE
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of National
Flood Mitigation Efforts and Facing Greater
Impact? A Method to Assess Racial
Inequality at the Census Tract Level
Andrew Kruczkiewicz1,2,3, Carolynne Hultquist1,4, Maya Dutta5, and Ryan Iyer6
1Columbia Climate School, Columbia University, New York, New York, Etats-Unis
2Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, The Netherlands
3Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands
4School of Earth and Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, Nouvelle-Zélande
5Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, New York, Etats-Unis
6Columbia College, Columbia University, New York, New York, Etats-Unis
Mots clés: flood risk mitigation, climate change adaptation policy, disproportionate disaster
impact, community resource inequality, flood impact
ABSTRAIT
Development policies have systematically relegated certain populations to undesirable
locations including areas at risk of flooding. Over time many properties will no longer be
inhabitable and others will see damage from significant flooding. Current U.S. federal policy
funds flood risk mitigation measures, such as property acquisition, relocation, and retrofitting;
cependant, depending on various factors at the subcounty level, these actions can in some
contexts provide disproportionate benefit to higher income, mostly White areas, failing to
appropriately benefit underserved and exposed populations. Ici, we present an exploratory
method, building off existing research on programmatic-wide and event-specific analysis to
explore patterns allowing state- and county-level decision-makers to identify inequalities
in federal funding, potentially supporting reprioritization. This work evaluates the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims data from 1975 à 2019 and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation efforts from 1989 à 2018 to explore the distribution
of mitigation measures related to tract to county racial disproportionalities (Par exemple,
majority non-White census tracts in majority White counties). We find that for majority
non-White census tracts in majority White counties, there are disproportionately fewer NFIP
claims. This supports previous work, which shows lower levels of assistance in flood recovery,
resilience, and preparedness in these areas.
INTRODUCTION
Economic development policies continue to lead to low-income and non-White populations
living in undesirable locations in the United States (Callies & Simon, 2017; Platt, 1976; Wilson
et coll., 2008), including locations at higher risk of flood event occurrence and damage (Howell
& Elliott, 2019; Logan, 2006). This failure to consider the gradients of impact across all affected
populations has led to unsustainable development practices (Bolin & Stanford, 1991; Gaddis
un accès ouvert
journal
Citation: Kruczkiewicz, UN., Hultquist, C.,
Dutta, M., & Iyer, R.. (2023). Are
Underserved Populations Left Out of
National Flood Mitigation Efforts and
Facing Greater Impact? A Method to
Assess Racial Inequality at the Census
Tract Level. Journal of Climate
Resilience & Justice climatique, 1, 78–92.
https://doi.org/10.1162/crcj_a_00005
EST CE QUE JE:
https://doi.org/10.1162/crcj_a_00005
Auteur correspondant:
Andrew Kruczkiewicz
ajk2207@columbia.edu
droits d'auteur: © 2023
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Publié sous Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International
(CC PAR 4.0) Licence.
La presse du MIT
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
et coll., 2007; Wilson, 2009). Disproportionate impact has been documented within multiple-
and single-flood events (Logan, 2006), and at various spatial scales, including city (Collins
et coll., 2018; Montgomery & Chakraborty, 2015), county (Cutter et al., 2000), state (Zahran
et coll., 2008), and national levels (Longstreth, 1999). Federally funded flood insurance and
buyout programs (Frazier et al., 2020; Siders, 2019un), which were developed as a response
to private insurers viewing flooding as a costly, uninsurable risk (Michel-Kerjan et al.,
2012), are at times perceived as a policy mechanism developed with the intention to address
institutionalized injustices and minimize hardship on non-White and low-income populations
at risk of flood events and damage (Anguelovski et al., 2016). Cependant, there are outstanding
questions regarding the degree to which these programs, at present, are effective (Frazier
et coll., 2020).
While defining what is “effective” can be complex, and subjective to some extent, même
efforts to more simply assess if programs lead to positive, negative, or negligible outcomes
for the populations are few (Davlasheridze & Miao, 2019; Knighton et al., 2020; Kousky &
Michel-Kerjan, 2017). Elements of effectiveness, including the enabling environments that
increase likelihood of effectiveness, must be better understood in order to both assess the
degree to which restructuring these programs could benefit vulnerable communities (Gannon
et coll., 2021; Vincent et al., 2018), and to effectively design them (Hemmati et al., 2022; Vilá
et coll., 2022). As availability of climate and demographic data increases the understanding of
both flood risk and the importance to center social justice in developing flood management
politique, responsibility for implementing in a socially just way must also be prioritized (Kim &
Sutley, 2021; Kraan et al., 2021). To do so, policy outcomes must not only be assessed as a
snapshot at a given time, such as after a single-flood event or for a modeled-flood event, comme
doing so can lead to incomplete statements on spatiotemporal distribution of effectiveness, comme
well as introduce additional bias (Boin & Lodge, 2016; Orth et al., 2022). Ideally, analytical
methods for effectiveness must be done across sufficiently long timescales, with improved
data availability (Murnane et al., 2016; Luke et al., 2018)
Even if focusing only on the climatic factors that comprise flood impact, flood policies
are becoming less likely to function as initially designed due to shifts in climate and cli-
mate change–related risk (Hudson & Botzen, 2019; Liu et al., 2019). Par exemple, quelques
residential properties are becoming uninhabitable (Burby et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2006)
et d'autres, including homes in current floodplains and property projected to be exposed
in the future (O’Donnell & Thorne, 2020; Tiggeloven et al., 2020; Wing et al., 2018), sont
likely to suffer unprecedented damage due to more frequent and significant flooding
events (Kunreuther et al., 2019; Wing et al., 2018; Wobus et al., 2017). Most flood insur-
ance and buyout programs, cependant, model coverage and rates based on historical flood-
ing patterns and fail to fully acknowledge the current and future climate risks related to
expanded geographic exposure and greater frequency and intensity (Pralle, 2019). Flood
policies should account for the implications of climate-induced changes to properly model
rates and respond to need (Blanc & Richards 2007; Pralle, 2019); cependant, significant
challenges remain related to identifying (1) which properties will be subject to increased
flood frequency in relation to others, (2) the timing of when certain properties may be
initially exposed before others, (3) when the frequency of flooding will lead to exposed
properties to be perceived to be nonfunctional, et (4) how and when shifts in the dis-
tribution of flooding impact may affect the most vulnerable populations (Carey, 2020).
These and other challenges add to the complexity of design and effective implementation
of flood resilience and risk-reduction programs and policies (Greiving et al., 2018; Hanna
et coll., 2019).
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
79
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the primary source of flood insurance, est
currently facing financial losses, which may be exacerbated with an increase in climate-
related flood risk and damage (Pralle, 2019). NFIP was created by the U.S. Congress under
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and is administered by the Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency (FEMA) with the intention to provide regulation on federal assistance in
flood-prone areas (Flood Insurance Subcommittee, 2011; Corne & Brun, 2017). Goals of NFIP
include developing a mechanism for sharing of the risk from flood losses, restricting certain
types of development in floodplains, and providing funds, in certain cases, for structural
modifications (Brun, 2016). While the federal government backs NFIP losses, in order for
a community to be eligible, they must meet certain criteria such as the requirement for com-
munities to adopt floodplain management efforts (Burby, 2001). These stipulations can lead to
additional pathways for bias in influencing both who and where is prioritized, and if there is a
lack of representation and advocacy for centering the most vulnerable and underserved com-
munities. These can become, if not acknowledged and left unchecked, factors in increasing
the likelihood of scenarios whereby everyone receives some benefit, which does not allow for
the gaps in the overall distribution of government-sourced wealth to be smaller than before the
program was implemented. This increased benefit gap, via policy claiming to be reducing cli-
mate risk, has been identified as potentially widening the wealth gap, and if so, essentially
promoting maladaptation (Atteridge & Remling, 2018). One aspect of screening climate adap-
tation efforts for their potential to be maladaptive is assessing what “equal benefit” means
across various timescales. A multi-timescale assessment should allow for the ability to process
complex scenarios of shifts in benefit over time. Par exemple, on short timescales, actions can
be taken so communities receive the same amount of benefit. Cependant, when considering
longer timescales, this may not allow for the gap between different communities to lessen,
particularly where persistence of racial and socioeconomic patterns of injustice are working
against the goals for a more equal distribution of risk (Magnan et al., 2016).
The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 required properties with secure or federally
backed mortgages in high-risk Special Flood Hazard Areas to acquire flood insurance, lequel
led to both a significant increase in the number of properties under the program and restriction
of federal assistance for flood event disasters in noncompliant areas (Arnell, 1984). While the
intention of this act was at least in part to enhance “rational” approaches to flood risk man-
agement (Wilson, 1975), questions remain regarding the degree to which disproportionate
negative impacts on non-White communities were considered (Anguelovski, 2013). In many
areas non-White populations live with flood risk; cependant, there are also indications that they
are more likely to accurately perceive and react to flood risk than White populations (Sung &
Hanna, 1996). These actions include the consideration of taking part in buyout programs
(Reeser, 2016) and purchasing flood insurance (Atreya et al., 2015; Browne & Hoyt, 2000).
Differences in reaction to flood risk between non-White and White populations have been
attributed to different determinants of risk perceptions, such as having recently experienced
a flood event (Atreya et al., 2015; Reeser, 2016), sufficient financial assets for emergency
funds, or more uncertainty about noninvestment income (Sung & Hanna, 1996). Both the priv-
ilege to tolerate risk and to elect to retain a partial perspective of climate risk can lead to a de-
prioritization of anticipatory actions to address such risk, such as flood risk, but this effect is
also present for other climate hazards (Borie et al., 2019; Chu & Cannon, 2021; Kruczkiewicz
et coll., 2022). While some impacts on financial, cultural, and health systems have been
described (Dannenberg et al., 2019), assessment of when, où, and to what extent conse-
quences associated with the implementation of future flood policies is needed (Loughran &
Elliott, 2019). Cependant, this comprehensive understanding must be developed to specifically
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
80
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
assess in what contexts and to what extent racial and socioeconomic discrepancies in flood insur-
ance access and purchase behavior do or do not exist (Brody et al., 2017; Shao et al., 2017).
Historically, floods have influenced the prioritization of housing risks within academic
recherche, as well as in development of national and local policy. As housing policy evolves
and becomes more sensitive to climate risks, there is a responsibility to ensure that new pol-
icies do not lead to greater differences in ability to access safe and affordable housing, aussi
as ensuring access to risk and early warning information to allow for preparedness and antic-
ipatory action when extreme flood events occur beyond the level of risk for which insurance
coverage is designed (Nordbeck et al., 2019; Sörensen & Mobini, 2017). Safe and affordable
housing is a critical element within Sustainable Development Goal 11, which identifies
making cities and human settlements “inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” (Aly et al.,
2022; Tetteh, 2021), while access to early warning information is a primary mechanism to
accelerate adaptation efforts, as announced by the UN Secretary General Guiterriez and out-
lined in the Early Warnings for All Executive Action Plan (World Meteorological Organization,
2022), and should therefore be integrated into policy development globally (Allen et al., 2006;
Mitchell, 2020). Cependant, even in some areas of the most developed countries adequate
housing, as defined as being resilient to flooding, has proven to be lacking (Bauduceau &
Jadot, 2017; Maantay & Maroko, 2009; Shao et al., 2020). There are various factors behind
the motivation to both remain in an area of significant flood risk and within a housing unit that
may be inadequate, with factors related to culture, identité, and tradition, as well as economic
opportunité, usually part of the calculation (Loucks et al., 2008; Seebauer & Winkler, 2020;
Siegrist & Gutscher, 2006). Plus loin, even when it is acknowledged that less than adequate
housing exists, the development of policy to allow for relatively safe livelihoods may not
benefit those who need it the most (Tonn et al., 2021). En outre, further specificity is needed
in areas that are delineated as being at risk to various flood types (Lawrence et al., 2020) et en
areas where they are not officially recognized as being at sufficient levels of risk (Smiley,
2020). Improved understanding of both the programmatic outcomes and geographic distribu-
tion of NFIP claims, especially as it relates to access by vulnerable communities and areas at
increased climate-related flood risk, may provide insight to how NFIP may or may not appro-
priately respond to the intersection of climate justice and flood damage in the coming years
(Wing et al., 2020).
Here we present a method to analyze and compare flood insurance and mitigation program
outcomes at sub-state levels. We include a case study to assess NFIP claims at the census tract
level in North and South Carolina (the Carolinas). Ce faisant, we seek to explore if and the
extent to which there are differences in NFIP claims in various types of racially disproportion-
ate tracts relative to their county’s level of racial disproportionality.
DATA AND METHODS
The Carolinas are a geographically and socioeconomically diverse region in the southeast
United States split into distinct regions: western mountains, central Piedmont, and coastal in
the east (Rhee et al., 2008). The coastal region is a broad low-lying area with complex geo-
graphic features influencing flood dynamics. The population in this region is primarily low
income with more non-White people compared to national, régional, and state averages.
There are also pockets of wealth, including some of near-exclusively White wealth (Kahrl,
2016; Kearney et al., 2018), with many of those areas including second homes or nonprimary
residences (Crawford et al., 2013). To assess relationships of racial inequality, we evaluate the
distribution of federal funding for flood mitigation and insurance claims. Primary data
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
81
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
accessed are NFIP claims and census variables used to indicate social vulnerability, similar to
methods in Bathi and Das (2016). The central questions guiding this study are as follows:
—What are the rates of receiving benefits from government flood programs?
—What are the differences due to race?
—What are the differences due to population density?
NFIP Claims Data
NFIP provides free and open data on flood losses, date of loss, and amount paid out, among
other variables. We use the census tract spatial unit allowing for analysis of loss data, dommage
magnitude and payout, and for attribution to a specific event (National Research Council,
2015). While data on participation status for specific communities exists, NFIP data does
not include personal identifiers, therefore the people (and their demographic descriptors)
who own and/or live at a specific claim location cannot be determined (Kousky & Michel-
Kerjan, 2017). Communities participating in NFIP must maintain minimum flood plain stan-
dards, including adopting a flood map and implementing permitting protocols that ensure new
development does not lead to additional flooding (FEMA, 2005). If communities fail to main-
tain standards, they can be placed on probation, influencing their ability to access federal
disaster assistance and mortgages (Corne & Brun, 2017).
Sociodemographic Data
Census variables are available at the county and census tract level. We use variables from the
Social Vulnerability Index hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010
Census tracts are used to aggregate demographic data. A primary advantage of using tracts
instead of other standard spatial aggregation units is their co-termini with country boundaries,
which is imperative for our study, and their relative uniformity in population represented
(environ 4,000 people per tract), compared to, Par exemple, zip codes that can exceed
100,000 people and vary in population.
Population Data
Tract-level total population was also sourced from the American Community 5-Year Survey
2019 to normalize NFIP claims by total number of people within a tract and county. We ulti-
mately chose to assess NFIP claims per person at the tract and county level, rather than total
NFIP claims. In an approach similar to Helderop and Grubesic’s (2022), we find that normal-
izing by total tract population permits for like-to-like comparison between tracts. This choice
allowed us to explore differences in NFIP uptake between tracts and counties without having
the total county population skew the results.
MÉTHODES
We join the data by spatial units to create a merged format for analysis in R (R Development
Core Team, 2009). We use census tract spatial units to match the highest resolution where both
the NFIP data can be deemed representative of uptake and availability, and at which the geo-
graphic dynamics are sufficiently distinct (Ratnadiwakara & Venugopal, 2019). Demographic
measures of race and population are appended using tract boundaries. As we are interested in
exploring how racial privilege operates relative to NFIP across different types of census tracts
(both in terms of relatively more or less White, or non-White, and over different types of geo-
graphic types of tracts), we compute a difference score, from −100 to 100, representing racial
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
82
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
proportion. Similar to Elliott et al. (2020), scores that are near zero indicate a tract that is
equally disproportionate (or proportionate) (Par exemple, 40% minority tract in a 40% minority
county) to the surrounding county, with higher positive (negative) values indicating tracts that
are more highly White (non-White) concentrated in an otherwise non-White ( Blanc) country.
RÉSULTATS
In calculating the count of NFIP claims at the tract level (Chiffre 1), a large proportion of claims
are in the coastal region, with claims in the Piedmont predominantly in urban areas. The west-
ern mountain region has claims in both built-up and rural areas. While Figure 1 provides some
insight regarding where NFIP claims have and have not occurred, it does not address if and to
what extent NFIP claims are occurring disproportionately across a county. While there are
standards for delineating census tracts, there is variance in population in each, with differences
in the hundreds not uncommon. To understand these differences, we calculated the percent-
age of NFIP claims found in each tract relative to their county total. Chiffre 2 shows the distri-
bution of tracts that represent a spectrum of proportions of claims relative to their county. Le
darkest red tracts indicate tracts that have at least 61.2% of their respective county’s NFIP
claims.
Figures 1 et 2 provide information on the geographic distribution of NFIP claim count and
tract disproportionality across the Carolinas, but do not address more refined questions regard-
ing where NFIP claims across racial demographics may have or have not occurred. Chiffre 3
shows each tract in the Carolinas by the difference in proportion of non-White population in
the tract relative to county levels. Higher negative values indicate tracts that have a higher
non-White proportion compared to the county they are in, such as found in western and north-
ern areas of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (where Charlotte, North Carolina, est
located). Higher positive values indicate tracts that have a higher White proportion compared
to the county they are in, such as in areas of Charleston County, South Carolina, that are just
east and south of the city center of Charleston. Values of around zero indicate tracts with a
similar proportion of non-White population compared to their counties, such as many tracts in
Chiffre 1. The count of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims per census tract.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
83
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
Chiffre 2. Percentage of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims in each census tract as a total within the county.
Currituck County, North Carolina, and Allendale County, South Carolina. Cependant, un
near-zero value does not necessarily represent similar tract demographic structures, as they
can differ significantly—such as in the above example with Currituck County being 90%
White and Allendale County being approximately 80% non-White. Tract racial disproportion-
ality can be considered a metric for assessing the degree to which disparities exist in terms of
differences in social dynamics in tracts compared to county level and as a way to understand
potential political and social power structures that exist at the intersection between tracts and
counties governance, collaboration, et influencer (Elliott et al., 2020).
With the information on NFIP claim distribution and tract racial disproportionality, nous
assessed the relationship between the racial proportion of each tract compared to their county
Chiffre 3. Percentage of minority in county minus the percentage of minority in tract.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
84
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
Chiffre 4. Percentage of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims in the census tract of the total within the county, normalized for
population.
with the percentage of claims of each tract relative to the county total (Chiffre 4). This is one
way to understand the relationship between Figures 2 et 3. Results show a skewness in the
data, indicating that for tracts that are disproportionately White compared to the county, là
is a greater likelihood for those tracts to have a higher percentage of NFIP claims.
On the y-axis, we plot the difference in NFIP claims per person between census tracts and
their associated county. Tracts that received less NFIP benefits than their associated county,
normalized by population, are shown to have negative values. We find that the majority of
tracts that receive a greater rate of benefits have a higher percentage of White population com-
pared to their associated county. This indicates that tracts with large White populations in rel-
atively non-White counties receive a greater percent of the NFIP benefits in their area.
Par exemple, for all tracts that are between 17.40% et 18.81% disproportionate White
compared to their counties, 1.5% of claims were received when normalized for population. Ce
value is similar to the inverse tract profile of roughly −.13% to −.86% disproportionate non-White.
Dans l'ensemble, tracts with a high non-White population in relatively White counties are shown to be
less likely to receive NFIP benefits compared to the remaining tracts within their county.
DISCUSSION
The analyses in this article highlight aspects of NFIP related to the geographic distribution of
claims and for whom benefits have and have not been received. Given the future risks of
flooding, including increased frequency and areas exposed, combined with vulnerable pop-
ulations that already receive a lower proportion of societal benefits, it is critical to further
examine the potential mechanisms for barriers to access and assistance, such that climate risks
do not further burden vulnerable communities (Kruczkiewicz et al., 2021; Lufoff & Wilkinson,
1979; Thistlethwaite et al., 2020).
Spatial analyses examining FEMA programmatic outcomes can be informative for (1) pre-
paring for current climate risks, (2) monitoring and evaluation of how effect of programs
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
85
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
overlap with areas that are and will likely be at risk to floods, et (3) presenting a baseline for
which future climate risks can be better anticipated—necessary for ensuring equitable housing
policies and local disaster recovery assistance (Limaye et al., 2019; Stephens, 2020). Specif-
ically, the analyses in this article expand upon the potential for local-level social and political
dynamics at play as a critical factor in understanding racial and demographic drivers of flood
insurance program availability, trust, and access (Wilson et al., 2021).
This analysis shows where NFIP claims have occurred, allowing for a visualization of the
geographic spread of land-use types that may be more affected by flooding or maintain access
in submitting NFIP claims (Figures 1 et 2). In North and South Carolina, the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) delineates floods into two main types, coastal
and inland (NOAA Digital Coast, 2017). The majority of NFIP claims in this geographic anal-
ysis occurs in coastal counties, which while bearing the risk of coastal hazards, they also host
the majority of economic production related to coastal and ocean resources (NOAA Digital
Coast, 2017). En outre, many of the inland tracts with a higher proportion of NFIP claims
are in urban areas, which face risks of exacerbated flooding due to the high percentage of
impervious surface (Hardison et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2017). An absence of NFIP claims does
not deem an area safe from future floods, nor does it imply that floods have not occurred in the
past. Cependant, this absence may imply the existence of certain barriers to access in filing for or
receiving recovery assistance measures, and further research should be conducted.
It is important to understand the geographic distribution of NFIP claims in a sociopolitical
context to provide insight on potential injustices within flood recovery and mitigation assis-
tance related to access, availability, and uptake. The results in Figure 4 show that for majority
non-White census tracts in majority White counties, there are disproportionately fewer NFIP
claims. This suggests tract racial disparity within a county can contribute to access barriers,
which potentially can contribute to increased flood vulnerability for minority populations
often already disproportionately burdened by climate injustices. Lower levels of assistance
in flood recovery, resilience, and preparedness in non-White communities aligns with previ-
ous findings that indicate non-White populations were deprioritized during response and
recovery efforts related to Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Katrina (Houston et al., 2021;
Reid, 2013; Zahran et al., 2008). Such analyses noting disproportionate assistance provisions,
cependant, have typically identified these disparities at a broader scale—such as differences
between states or counties—suggesting access barriers at various governmental scales, surtout-
cially through differences in governmental capacity (Sloan & Fowler, 2015; Wilson et al.,
2021). The limited administrative capacity of some county-level governments leads to chal-
lenges in ensuring adequate management of disaster-related recovery and resilience programs,
including NFIP. This leads to inadequate preservation of institutional memory, less than ideal
technical assistance, limited outreach services, and gaps in translating what the flood risk data
can mean for specific at risk communities (Elliott et al., 2020; Mach et al., 2019; Sloan & Fow-
ler, 2015; Wilson et al., 2021). Our analyses focus on county-level differences, therefore iden-
tifying a unique discrepancy where community members experiencing the same governmental
structure still receive disparate benefits, with census tract difference in minority population as
an indicator. This suggests local-level (within county) sociopolitical access barriers for non-
White populations exist in various stages of flood management, including when receiving
flood recovery benefits. Cependant, disproportionality alone may be incomplete to determine
causality, and additional steps could be necessary to assess the degree to which racial dispro-
portionalities exist relative to exposure to various types of floods.
Mechanisms leading to access barriers for non-White individuals include bias in damage
inspections, informal property titles leading to denied claims, and discriminatory historical
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
86
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
policies leading to depreciated housing values and subsequently reduced assistance values
(Grube et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2021). En outre, non-White population demographics
often overlap with other underlying sociodemographic characteristics such as lower incomes
or higher probabilities of renting, all of which maintain other access barriers that may exac-
erbate the racial issues related to programmatic assistance uptake. Par exemple, during FEMA
inspections in Houston following Hurricane Dolly, over 100,000 cases of individuals seeking
recovery assistance were denied based on “insufficient damage,” as the homes prior to the
event were in poor condition and damage could not be attributed to the hurricane. These
denials occurred mostly in neighborhoods that were predominantly low income and non-
Blanc (Sloan & Fowler, 2015). A better understanding of access barriers, and the types of pro-
cedural justice that must be in place to address them, must inform capacity development and
the design of disaster policies focused on delivering justice and sufficient assistance (Paavola &
Adger, 2002).
The potential to model NFIP exists, and it must react to current levels and plan for future
levels of natural hazard risk (Hino et al., 2017). This includes addressing risk of various indi-
vidual flood types and the interaction between multiple flood types (Green et al., 2000). While
managed retreat strategies promote relocation opportunities to populations with exposed prop-
erty while intending to provide support to the most vulnerable populations, these groups face
various types of implicit sociocultural stresses (Agyeman et al., 2009) and more explicit finan-
cial (Hanna et al., 2020) and political barriers related to the accessibility and cultural appro-
priateness of these policies (Maantay & Maroko, 2009; Paganini, 2019). Donc, even if
certain populations are determined to be the most socioeconomically vulnerable or the most
exposed (Martinich et al., 2013), programs like NFIP should be designed to ensure access,
justice, and equity (Siders, 2019b). Doing so is critical in order to accomplish goals associated
with addressing the public health crisis around availability and access to healthy housing and
ressources (Limaye et al., 2019; Stephens, 2020), as well as supporting strategies to build
resilient communities in both rural and urban areas (Mehryar & Surminski, 2021; Minano
et coll., 2021), especially those with racial and socioeconomic diversity such as the Carolinas
(Thomson et al., 2021).
Given the history of discriminatory practices in urban development and housing policies,
there are various questions that should be raised regarding what the “most just” or “most
equitable” methods are to ensure that in their application certain subsets of the populations
that are intended to be supported are not driven to increased levels of risk. En outre, those in
positions of political power and in trusted roles in the community have a responsibility to
communicate climate risks in a way that will significantly decrease prioritization of resources
that does not ultimately yield to decreasing disproportionate impact from extreme events.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Given the accumulated distribution of NFIP claims presented across the Carolinas in the con-
text of different flood types and a projected increased risk of flooding due to climate change,
development, and aging infrastructure, this geographic analysis provides a tool to visualize
current and potential future funding needs and a means to identify areas to prioritize for
enhanced outreach and communication efforts. Our research outlines a process that can be
iterated in other locations of interest, and potentially applied to other contexts outside of the
tract-to-county spatial scale. As investment in climate change adaptation increases, and as
attention grows in terms of understanding and taking steps to avoid burdens on historically
underserved populations, our analyses contribute to the body of work centering justice while
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
87
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
integrating climate science within policy development, community building, and communi-
cation. In this realm, we present four priorities.
D'abord, for research, climate and environmental scientists must seek to further integrate a justice
lens within all aspects of disaster risk. Doing so should incentivize attention on the implications
of different forms of justice including but not limited to distributive, procedural, recognitional,
and interactional justice. A strong propensity to pursue real or perceived “unfairness” in disasters
can be made more tractable by examining the procedural justice issues, such as involvement in
planning, that later influence distributive justice (c'est à dire., who gets resources or who is impacted).
Alors, considerable experience and guidance from social and environmental justice and partic-
ipatory governance could be brought to bear (Lukasiewicz & Baldwin, 2020). Progress toward
flood risk policy centering justice would be incomplete without more specifically identifying
factors related to gender, especially traditionally underserved and undocumentable community
members, such as nonbinary and transgender populations, for which there is a noted and iden-
tified gap across research and policy contexts (van Daalen et al., 2020).
Deuxième, for policy, we must continue to develop science- and justice-based standards for
reviewing policy and programs addressing climate risk within and across communities. Tel
policies and processes are often only evaluated by focusing on questions related to “what was
the positive impact?” and “did we accomplish what was intended?” This study, et d'autres,
shed light on the appropriate, more complex question of “what was the net benefit considering
impacts and gains across the spectrum of demographic groups?” Investment in policy evalu-
ation is critical, especially as willfully manipulated “success stories” influence the scaled, iter-
ated decisions in the same and additional areas, threatening to exacerbate negative impacts
without informed knowledge of doing so.
Troisième, for communication and dissemination, approaches must contribute to, and describe,
accurate and risk-sensitive science information to all communities in a way that is appropri-
ately salient, yet sufficiently detailed and nuanced for those affected in different ways. This is
increasingly important as hazards continue to evolve and lead to non-stationary risk profiles
that can vary significantly across state, county, and even tract.
Fourth, as barriers to access programs can be at least in part attributed to a lack of outreach
or inadequate acknowledgement and appreciation of community diversity, it is particularly
important to describe complex and nonprimary disaster types within impact-based definitions.
Doing so must first acknowledge historical variation of resource availability and access, et
then seek to include participation of those traditionally deprioritized and underserved. Plus loin
work must seek to explore these relationships in more depth, particularly those between race,
risk perception, access to services and programs, and flood risk reduction and resilience
actions before, after, and during disasters.
RÉFÉRENCES
Agyeman, J., Devine-Wright, P., & Prange, J.. (2009). Close to the
bord, down by the river? Joining up managed retreat and place
attachment in a climate changed world. Environment and Plan-
ning A, 41(3), 509–513. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41301
Allen, UN., Dávila, J.. D., & Hofmann, P.. (2006). The peri-urban water
poor: Citizens or consumers? Environment and Urbanization,
18(2), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247806069608
Aly, M.. M., Refay, N. H., Elattar, H., Morsy, K. M., Bandala, E. R.,
Zein, S. UN., & Mostafa, M.. K., (2022). Ecohydrology and flood
risk management under climate vulnerability in relation to the
sustainable development goals (SDGs): A case study in Nagaa
Mobarak Village, Egypt. Natural Hazards, 112(2), 1107–1135.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05220-2
Anguelovski, je. (2013). New directions in urban environmental
justice: Rebuilding community, addressing trauma, and remaking
place. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(2),
160–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13478019
Anguelovski, JE., Shi, L., Chu, E., Gallagher, D., Goh, K., Lamb, Z.,
Reeve, K., & Teicher, H. (2016). Equity impacts of urban land use
planning for climate adaptation: Critical perspectives from the
global north and south. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
36(3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16645166
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
88
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
Arnell, N. W. (1984). Flood hazard management in the United
States and the National Flood Insurance Program. Geoforum,
15(4), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(84)90023-X
Atreya, UN., Ferreira, S., & Michel-Kerjan, E. (2015). What drives
households to buy flood insurance? New evidence from Georgia.
Ecological Economics, 117, 153–161. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.ecolecon.2015.06.024
Atteridge, UN., & Remling, E. (2018). Is adaptation reducing vulner-
ability or redistributing it? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Changement climatique, 9(1), Article e500. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc
.500
Bathi, J.. R., & Le, H. S. (2016). Vulnerability of coastal communi-
ties from storm surge and flood disasters. Revue internationale de
Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(2), Article 239.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020239, PubMed: 26907313
Bauduceau, N., & Jadot, J.. (2017). How cost-effective is reducing
the vulnerability of housing in response to flood risk? In F. Vinet
(Ed.), Floods (pp. 79–89). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978
-1-78548-269-4.50006-8
Boin, UN., & Lodge, M.. (2016). Designing resilient institutions for
transboundary crisis management: A time for public administra-
tion. Public Administration, 94(2), 289–298. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1111/padm.12264
Bolin, R., & Stanford, L. (1991). Shelter, housing and recovery: UN
comparison of U. S. disasters. Disasters, 15(1), 24–34. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1991.tb00424.x, PubMed:
20958712
Borie, M., Pelling, M., Ziervogel, G., & Hyams, K. (2019). Cartographie
narratives of urban resilience in the Global South. Envi Global-
Changement mental, 54, 203–213. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.gloenvcha.2019.01.001
Brody, S. D., Highfield, W. E., Wilson, M., Lindell, M.. K., &
Blessing, R.. (2017). Understanding the motivations of coastal res-
idents to voluntarily purchase federal flood insurance. Journal de
Risk Research, 20(6), 760–775. https://est ce que je.org/10.1080
/13669877.2015.1119179
Brun, J.. T. (2016). Introduction to FEMA’s national flood insurance
program (NFIP). Congressional Research Service.
Browne, M.. J., & Hoyt, R.. E. (2000). The demand for flood insur-
ance: Empirical evidence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
20(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007823631497
Burby, R.. J.. (2001). Flood insurance and floodplain management:
The US experience. Global Environmental Change Part B: Envi-
ronmental Hazards, 3(3–4), 111–122. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016
/S1464-2867(02)00003-7
Burby, R.. J., Deyle, R.. E., Godschalk, D. R., & Olshansky, R.. B.
(2000). Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use
planning. Natural Hazards Review, 1(2), 99–106. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:2(99)
Callies, D. L., & Simon, D. B. (2017). Fair housing, discrimination
and inclusionary zoning in the United States. Journal of Interna-
tional and Comparative Law, 4(1), 39–67.
Carey, J.. (2020). Core concept: Managed retreat increasingly seen
as necessary in response to climate change’s fury. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 117(24), 13182–13185.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008198117, PubMed: 32461355
Chu, E. K., & Cannon, C. E. (2021). Equity, inclusion, and justice as
criteria for decision making on climate adaptation in cities.
Opinion actuelle sur la durabilité environnementale, 51, 85–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.02.009
Collins, T. W., Grineski, S. E., & Chakraborty, J.. (2018). Environ-
mental injustice and flood risk: A conceptual model and case
comparison of metropolitan Miami and Houston, Etats-Unis. Régional
Changement environnemental, 18(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10113-017-1121-9, PubMed: 29551952
Crawford, T. W., Marcucci, D. J., & Bennett, UN. (2013). Impacts of
residential development on vegetation cover for a remote coastal
barrier in the outer banks of North Carolina, Etats-Unis. Journal de
Coastal Conservation, 17(3), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11852-013-0241-8
Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J.. T., & Scott, M.. S. (2000). Revealing the vul-
nerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown
County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 90(4), 713–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/0004
-5608.00219
Dannenberg, UN. L., Frumkin, H., Hess, J.. J., & Ebi, K. L. (2019).
Managed retreat as a strategy for climate change adaptation in
small communities: Public health implications. Climatic
Changement, 153(1–2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019
-02382-0
Davlasheridze, M., & Miao, Q. (2019). Does governmental assis-
tance affect private decisions to insure? an empirical analysis
of flood insurance purchases. Land Economics, 95(1), 124–145.
https://doi.org/10.3368/le.95.1.124
Elliott, J.. R., Brun, P.. L., & Loughran, K. (2020). Racial inequities in
the federal buyout of flood-prone homes: A nationwide assess-
ment of environmental adaptation. Socius, 6. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1177/2378023120905439
FEMA. (2005). Floodplain management requirements: A study guide
and desk reference for local officials. Federation Emergency Man-
agement Agency.
Flood Insurance Subcommittee. (2011). The National Flood Insur-
ance Program: Passé, present … and future. American Academies
of Actuaries.
Frazier, T., Boyden, E. E., & Wood, E. (2020). Socioeconomic impli-
cations of national flood insurance policy reform and flood insur-
ance rate map revisions. Natural Hazards, 103, 329–346. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03990-1
Gaddis, E. B., Miles, B., Morse, S., & Lewis, D.
(2007). Full-
cost accounting of coastal disasters in the United States:
Implications for planning and preparedness. Ecological
Economics, 63(2–3), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon
.2007.01.015
Gannon, K. E., Crick, F., Atela, J., & Conway, D. (2021). What role
for multi-stakeholder partnerships in adaptation to climate
changement? Experiences from private sector adaptation in Kenya.
Climate Risk Management, 32, Article 100319. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100319
Vert, C. H., Parker, D. J., & Tunstall, S. M.. (2000). Assessment of
flood control and management options. Thematic Review IV.
World Commission on Dams Secretariat, Afrique du Sud.
Greiving, S., Du, J., & Puntub, W. (2018). Managed retreat—A
strategy for the mitigation of disaster risks with international and
comparative perspectives. Journal of Extreme Events, 5, Article
1850011. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2345737618500112
Grube, L. E., Fike, R., & Storr, V. H. (2018). Navigating disaster: Un
empirical study of federal assistance following Hurricane Sandy.
Eastern Economic Journal, 44(4), 576–593. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1057/s41302-017-0098-x
Hanna, C., Blanc, JE., & Glavovic, B. (2019). Managed retreat
in practice: Mechanisms and challenges for implementation.
In Oxford research encyclopedia of natural hazard science.
Presse universitaire d'Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore
/9780199389407.013.350
Hanna, C., Blanc, JE., & Glavovic, B. (2020). The uncertainty con-
tagion: Revealing the interrelated, cascading uncertainties of
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
89
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
managed retreat. Durabilité, 12(2), 736. https://est ce que je.org/10
.3390/su12020736
Hardison, E. C., O’Driscoll, M.. UN., DeLoatch, J.. P.. Howard, R.. J., &
Brinson, M.. M.. (2009). Urban land use, channel incision, et
water table decline along coastal plain streams, North Carolina
1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association,
45(4), 1032–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009
.00345.X
Helderop, E., & Grubesic, T. H. (2022). Hurricane storm surge:
Toward a normalized damage index for coastal regions. Natural
Hazards, 110(2), 1179–1197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069
-021-04987-0
Hemmati, M., Kornhuber, K., & Kruczkiewicz, UN. (2022). Enhanced
urban adaptation efforts needed to counter rising extreme rainfall
risks. NPJ Urban Sustainability, 2(1), 1–5. https://est ce que je.org/10.1038
/s42949-022-00058-w
Hino, M., Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J.. (2017). Managed retreat as a
response to natural hazard risk. Changement climatique, 7(5),
364–370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3252
Corne, D. P., & Brun, J.. T. (2017). Introduction to the national flood
insurance program (NFIP). Congressional Research Service.
Houston, D., Balle, T., Werritty, UN., & Noir, UN. R.. (2021). Social
influences on flood preparedness and mitigation measures
adopted by people living with flood risk. Water, 13(21), Article
2972. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13212972
Howell, J., & Elliott, J.. R.. (2019). Damages done: The longitudinal
impacts of natural hazards on wealth inequality in the United
États. Social Problems, 66(3), 448–467. https://est ce que je.org/10.1093
/socpro/spy016
Hudson, P., & Botzen, W. W. (2019). Cost–benefit analysis of flood-
zoning policies: A review of current practice. Wiley Interdisci-
plinary Reviews: Water, 6(6), Article e1387.
Kahrl, UN. W. (2016). The land was ours: How black beaches
became white wealth in the coastal south. UNC Press Books.
https://doi.org/10.5149/northcarolina/9781469628721.001
.0001
Kearney, G. D., Jones, K., Cloche, R.. UN., Swinker, M., & Allen, T. R..
(2018). Climate change and public health through the lens of
rural, eastern North Carolina. North Carolina Medical Journal,
79(5), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.79.5.270,
PubMed: 30228131
Kim, J.. H., & Sutley, E. J.. (2021). Implementation of social equity
metrics in an engineering based framework for distributing disas-
ter resources. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
64, Article 102485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102485
Knighton, J., Buchanan, B., Guzman, C., Elliott, R., Blanc, E., &
Rahm, B. (2020). Predicting flood insurance claims with hydro-
logic and socioeconomic demographics via machine learning:
Exploring the roles of topography, minority populations, et
political dissimilarity. Journal of Environmental Management,
272, Article 111051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020
.111051, PubMed: 32677622
Kousky, C., & Michel-Kerjan, E. (2017). Examining flood insurance
claims in the United States: Six key findings. Journal of Risk and
Insurance, 84(3), 819–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12106
Kraan, C. M., Hino, M., Niemann, J., Siders, UN., & Mach, K. J..
(2021). Promoting equity in retreat through voluntary property
buyout programs. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences,
11, 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00688-z
Kruczkiewicz, UN., Brun, M., McClain, S., Greatrex, H., Padilla, L.,
Hoffman-Hernandez, L., Siahaan, K., Nielsen, M., Llamanzares,
B., & Flamig, Z. (2021). Flood risk and monitoring data for
preparedness and response: From availability to use. In H. Wu,
D. P.. Lettenmaier, Q. Tang, & P.. J.. Ward (Éd.), Global drought
and flood: Observation, modeling, and prediction (AGU Geo-
physical Monograph 265; pp. 289–306). American Geophysical
Union. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119427339.ch16
Kruczkiewicz, UN., Cian, F., Monasterolo, JE., Di Baldassarre, G.,
Caldas, UN., Royz, M., Glasscoe, M., Ranger, N., & van Aalst,
M.. (2022). Multiform flood risk in a rapidly changing world:
What we do not do, what we should and why it matters. Environ-
mental Research Letters, 17(8), Article 081001. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1088/1748-9326/ac7ed9
Kunreuther, H., Wachter, S. M., Kousky, C., & LaCour-Little, M..
(2019). Flood risk and the U.S. housing market. SSRN. https://
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3426638
Lawrence, J., Boston, J., Cloche, R., Olufson, S., Kool, R., Hardcastle,
M., & Stroombergen, UN. (2020). Implementing pre-emptive man-
aged retreat: Constraints and novel insights. Current Climate
Change Reports, 6(3), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641
-020-00161-z
Limaye, V. S., Max, W., Constible, J., & Knowlton, K. (2019). Esti-
mating the health-related costs of 10 climate-sensitive US events
pendant 2012. GeoHealth, 3(9), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1029
/2019GH000202, PubMed: 32159045
Liu, Z., Lequel, Y., Il, C., & Tu, M.. (2019). Climate change will con-
strain the rapid urban expansion in drylands: A scenario analysis
with the zoned land use scenario dynamics urban model. Sci-
ence of the Total Environment, 651, 2772–2786. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.177, PubMed: 30463131
Logan, J.. R.. (2006). The impact of Katrina: Race and class in storm-
damaged neighborhoods (Technologie. représentant). Brown University.
Longstreth, J.. (1999). Public health consequences of global climate
change in the United States–Some regions may suffer dispropor-
tionately. Environmental Health Perspectives, 107(Supplément. 1),
169–179. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.99107s1169, PubMed:
10229716
Loucks, D. P., Stedinger, J.. R., Davis, D. W., & Stakhiv, E. Z. (2008).
Private and public responses to flood risks. International Journal
of Water Resources Development, 24(4), 541–553. https://doi.org
/10.1080/07900620801923286
Loughran, K., & Elliott, J.. R.. (2019). Residential buyouts as environ-
mental mobility: Examining where homeowners move to illuminate
social inequities in climate adaptation. Population and Environment,
41(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-019-00324-7
Lufoff, UN. E., & Wilkinson, K. P.. (1979). Participation in the national
flood insurance program: A study of community activeness. Rural
Sociology, 44(1), 137–152.
Lukasiewicz, UN., & Baldwin, C.
(2020). Future pathways for
disaster justice. In Natural hazards and disaster justice: Chal-
lenges for Australia and its neighbours (pp. 349–359). Springer
Singapore. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15
-0466-2_18
Luke, UN., Sanders, B. F., Goodrich, K. UN., Feldman, D. L., Boudreau,
D.,Eguiarte,A.,Serrano,K.,Reyes,A.,Schubert,J.E.,AghaKouchak,
UN., & Basolo, V. (2018). Going beyond the flood insurance rate
map: Insights from flood hazard map co-production. Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(4), 1097–1120. https://
doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1097-2018
Maantay, J., & Maroko, UN. (2009). Mapping urban risk: Flood haz-
ards, course, & environmental justice in New York. Applied Geog-
raphie, 29(1), 111–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.08
.002, PubMed: 20047020
Mach, K. J., Kraan, C. M., Hino, M., Siders, UN., Johnston, E. M., &
Field, C. B. (2019). Managed retreat through voluntary buyouts of
flood-prone properties. Science Advances, 5(10), Article
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
90
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
eaax8995. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax8995, PubMed:
31633030
Magnan, UN. K., Schipper, E. L. F, Burkett, M., Bharwani, S., Burton,
JE., Eriksen, S., Gemenne, F., Schaar, J., & Ziervogel, G. (2016).
Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate change. Wiley
Examens interdisciplinaires: Changement climatique, 7(5), 646–665.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.409
Martinich, J., Neumann, J., Louis, L., & Jantarasami, L. (2013).
Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the
États-Unis. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Changement, 18(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011
-9356-0
Mehryar, S., & Surminski, S. (2021). National laws for enhancing
flood resilience in the context of climate change: Potential and
shortcomings. Politique climatique, 21(2), 133–151. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1080/14693062.2020.1808439
Michel-Kerjan, E., Lemoyne de Forges, S., & Kunreuther, H. (2012).
Policy tenure under the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Risk Analysis, 32(4), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1539-6924.2011.01671.X, PubMed: 21919928
Minano, UN., Thistlethwaite, J., Henstra, D., & Scott, D. (2021). Gov-
ernance of flood risk data: A comparative analysis of government
and insurance geospatial data for identifying properties at risk of
flood. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 88, Article
101636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2021.101636
Mitchell, M.. UN. (2020). Racism as a motivator for climate justice.
Dédale, 149(4), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01819
Montgomery, M.. C., & Chakraborty, J.. (2015). Assessing the envi-
ronmental justice consequences of flood risk: A case study in
Miami, Florida. Environmental Research Letters, 10(9), Article
095010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095010
Murnane, R., Simpson, UN., & Jongman, B. (2016). Compréhension
risk: What makes a risk assessment successful? International Jour-
nal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7, 186–200.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-06-2015-0033
Myers, B. L. (1975). The flood disaster protection act of 1973. Am.
Bus. LJ, 13, 315. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle
=hein.journals/ambuslj13&div=26&id=&page=
National Research Council. (2015). Tying flood insurance to flood
risk for low-lying structures in the floodplain. National Acade-
mies Press.
NOAA Digital Coast. (2017). Coastal county definitions (Technologie.
représentant). Office for Coastal Management. https://coast.noaa.gov
/data/digitalcoast/pdf/qrt-coastal-county-definitions.pdf
Nordbeck, R., Steurer, R., & Löschner, L. (2019). The future orien-
tation of Austria’s flood policies: From flood control to anticipa-
tory flood risk management. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 62(11), 1864–1885. https://est ce que je.org/10.1080
/09640568.2018.1515731
Orth, R., Sungmin, O., Zscheischler, J., Mahecha, M.. D., & Reichstein,
M.. (2022). Contrasting biophysical and societal impacts of
hydro-meteorological extremes. Environmental Research Letters,
17(1), Article 014044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4139
O’Donnell, E. C., & Thorne, C. R.. (2020). Drivers of future urban
flood risk. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,
378(2168), Article 20190216. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019
.0216, PubMed: 32063161
Paavola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2002). Justice and adaptation to climate
changement. Working Paper 23. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research. https://hpccc.hp.gov.in/ Publications/Justice%20and
%20adaptation%20to%20climate%20change.pdf
Paganini, Z. (2019). Underwater: Resilience, racialized housing,
and the National Flood Insurance Program in Canarsie, Brooklyn.
Geoforum, 104, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019
.06.003
Platt, R.. H. (1976). The National Flood Insurance Program:
Some midstream perspectives. Journal of the American Institute
o f P l an ne r s , 42 ( 3 ) , 3 0 3– 31 3. h t t p s :/ / d o i . o rg/ 1 0 . 1 0 8 0
/01944367608977733
Pralle, S. (2019). Drawing lines: FEMA and the politics of mapping
flood zones. Climatic Change, 152(2), 227–237. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s10584-018-2287-y
R Development Core Team. (2009). R.: A language and environ-
ment for statistical computing. Version 4.3.0. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org
Ratnadiwakara, D., & Venugopal, B. (2019). Climate risk percep-
tions and demand for flood insurance. SSRN. https://est ce que je.org/10
.2139/ssrn.3531380
Reeser, C. M.. (2016). Homeowner willingness to pay for a pre-flood
buyout agreement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Reid, M.. (2013). Social policy, “deservingness,” and sociotemporal
marginalization: Katrina survivors and FEMA. Sociological
Forum, 28(4), 742–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12051
Rhee, J., Im, J., Carbone, G. J., & Jensen, J.. R.. (2008). Delineation of
climate regions using in situ and remotely-sensed data for the
Carolinas. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(6), 3099–3111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.03.001
Seebauer, S., & Winkler, C. (2020). Should I stay or should I go?
Factors in household decisions for or against relocation from a
flood risk area. Changement environnemental mondial, 60, Article
102018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102018
Shao, W., Xian, S., Lin, N., Kunreuther, H., Jackson, N., & Goidel,
K. (2017). Understanding the effects of past flood events and
perceived and estimated flood risks on individuals’ voluntary flood
insurance purchase behavior. Water Research, 108, 391–400.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.021, PubMed: 27876363
Shao, W., Jackson, N. P., Ha, H., & Winemiller, T. (2020). Assessing
community vulnerability to floods and hurricanes along the Gulf
Coast of the United States. Disasters, 44(3), 518–547. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1111/disa.12383, PubMed: 31251410
Shively, G. E., 2017. Infrastructure mitigates the sensitivity of child
growth to local agriculture and rainfall in Nepal and Uganda.
Actes de l'Académie nationale des sciences, 114(5),
903–908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524482114, PubMed:
28096416
Siders, UN. (2019un). Managed retreat in the United States. Une Terre,
1(2), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.09.008
Siders, UN. R.. (2019b). Social justice implications of US managed
retreat buyout programs. Climatic Change, 152(2), 239–257.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2272-5
Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison of
lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzer-
atterrir. Risk Analysis, 26(4), 971–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1539-6924.2006.00792.X, PubMed: 16948689
Sloan, M., & Fowler, D. (2015). Lessons from Texas: 10 years of
disaster recovery examined ( White paper). Texas Appleseed.
Smiley, K. T. (2020). Social inequalities in flooding inside and out-
side of floodplains during Hurricane Harvey. Environnemental
Research Letters, 15(9), Article 0940b3. https://doi.org/10.1088
/1748-9326/aba0fe
Forgeron, V. K., Carbone, J.. C., Pope, J.. C., Hallstrom, D. G., & Darden,
M.. E. (2006). Adjusting to natural disasters. Journal of Risk and Uncer-
tainty, 33(1–2), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-006-0170-0
Sörensen, J., & Mobini, S. (2017). Pluvial, urban flood mechanisms
and characteristics–Assessment based on insurance claims.
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
91
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
Are Underserved Populations Left Out of Flood Mitigation Efforts?
Journal of Hydrology, 555, 51–67. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.jhydrol.2017.09.039
Stephens, J.. C. (2020). Diversifying power: Why we need antiracist,
feminist leadership on climate and energy. Island Press.
Sung, J., & Hanna, S. D. (1996). Factors related to risk tolerance.
Financial Counseling and Planning, 7. SSRN. https://ssrn.com
/abstract=8284
Tetteh, E. (2021). Achieving the SDG Goal 11: Flood mitigation and
adaptation strategies in Iowa (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Iowa State University.
Thistlethwaite, J., Henstra, D., Brun, C., & Scott, D. (2020).
Barriers to insurance as a flood risk management tool: Evidence
from a survey of property owners. International Journal of Disas-
ter Risk Science, 11, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753
-020-00272-z
Thomson, H., Zeff, H. B., Kleiman, R., Sebastian, UN., & Characklis,
G. W. (2021). Financial risk of flood events in eastern North Car-
olina (Technologie. représentant). The North Carolina Policy Collaboratory: Le
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Tiggeloven, T., Moel, H. D., Winsemius, H. C., Eilander, D., Erkens,
G., & Gebremedhin, E. (2020). Global-scale benefit–cost analysis
of coastal flood adaptation to different flood risk drivers using
structural measures. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,
20(4), 1025–1044. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1025-2020
Tonn, B., Hawkins, B., Rose, E., & Marincic, M.. (2021). A futures
perspective of health, climate change and poverty in the United
États. Futures, 131, Article 102759. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.futures.2021.102759
van Daalen, K., Jung, L., Dhatt, R., & Phelan, UN. L. (2020). Climat
change and gender-based health disparities. The Lancet Plane-
tary Health, 4(2), e44–e45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542
-5196(20)30001-2, PubMed: 32112742
Vilá, O., Forgeron, G., Cutts, B., Gyawali, S., & Bhattarai, S. (2022).
Equity in FEMA hazard mitigation assistance programs: Le
role of state hazard mitigation officers. Environmental Science
& Policy, 136, 632–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022
.07.027
Vincent, K., Daly, M., Scannell, C., & Leathes, B. (2018). What can
climate services learn from theory and practice of co-production?
Climate Services, 12, 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2018
.11.001
Blanc, JE., & Richards, J.. (2007). Planning policy and flood risk: Le
translation of national guidance into local policy. Planning,
Practice & Research, 22(4), 513–534. https://est ce que je.org/10.1080
/02697450701770050
Wilson, J.. P.. (2009). Policy actions of Texas gulf coast cities to
mitigate hurricane damage: Perspectives of city officials (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Texas State University.
Wilson, L. J.. (1975). The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973: UN
rational approach to flood damage prevention. IUSTITIA, 3(1), 66.
Wilson, S., Hutson, M., & Mujahid, M.. (2008). How planning and
zoning contribute to inequitable development, neighborhood
health, and environmental injustice. Environmental Justice,
1(4), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2008.0506
Wilson, B., Tate, E., & Emrich, C. T. (2021). Flood recovery out-
comes and disaster assistance barriers for vulnerable popula-
tion. Frontiers in Water, 3, Article 752307. https://est ce que je.org/10
.3389/frwa.2021.752307
Wing, Ô. E., Bates, P.. D., Forgeron, UN. M., Sampson, C. C., Johnson,
K. UN., Fargione, J., & Morefield, P.. (2018). Estimates of present
and future flood risk in the conterminous United States. Environ-
mental Research Letters, 13(3), Article 034023. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1088/1748-9326/aaac65
Wing, Ô. E. J., Pinter, N., Bates, P.. D., & Kousky, C. (2020). Nouveau
insights into US flood vulnerability revealed from flood insurance
big data. Communications naturelles, 11(1444), 1-dix. https://doi.org
/10.1038/s41467-020-15264-2, PubMed: 32193386
Wobus, C., Gutmann, E., Jones, R., Rissing, M., Mizukami, N.,
Lorie, M., Mahoney, H., Wood, UN., Mills, D., & Martinich, J..
(2017). Climate change impacts on flood risk and asset damages
within mapped 100-year floodplains of the contiguous United
États. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(12), Arti-
clé 2199. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-2199-2017
World Meteorological Organization. (2022). Early Warnings for All,
Executive Action Plan 2023-2027 (The UN Global Early Warning
Initiative for the Implementation of Climate Adaptation).
Zahran, S., Brody, S. D., Peacock, W. G., Vedlitz, UN., & Grover, H.
(2008). Social vulnerability and the natural and built environ-
ment: A model of flood casualties in Texas. Disasters, 32(4),
537–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01054.x,
PubMed: 18435768
Zhou, Z., Forgeron, J.. UN., Lequel, L., Baeck, M.. L., Chaney, M., Ten
Veldhuis, M.-C., Deng, H., & Liu, S. (2017). The complexities
of urban flood response: Flood frequency analyses for the Char-
lotte metropolitan region. Water Resources Research, 53(8),
7401–7425. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019997
Journal of Climate Resilience and Climate Justice
92
Téléchargé depuis http://direct.mit.edu/crcj/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/crcj_a_00005/2157249/crcj_a_00005.pdf by guest on 07 Septembre 2023
