Drawing lines: FEMA and the politics of mapping flood zones

Pralle, Sarah

doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2287-y

Cited by 89 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, federal and local relief efforts may not adequately respond to inland recurrent flooding among those most at risk [52,53]. Our findings distinctively complement recent research that suggests that uneven FEMA distribution may contribute to social inequality [11,54], and we would add that this may also contribute to environmental health inequities based on which populations become ‘sitting ducks’ with increased risk for long term and ongoing adverse exposures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“We’re Just Sitting Ducks”: Recurrent Household Flooding as An Underreported Environmental Health Threat in Detroit’s Changing Climate

Sampson¹,

Price²,

Kassem³

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recurrent inland urban flooding is an understudied phenomenon that warrants greater attention, particularly in post-industrial cities where aging infrastructure, disinvestment, and climate change threaten public health. We conducted semi-structured interviews in 2017–2018 with 18 Detroit residents experiencing recurrent household flooding. We used standard qualitative coding analysis to generate 30 theoretically- and in vivo- derived themes related to flood experience, socioeconomic and health factors, and household, community, and policy interventions for reducing environmental exposures before, during, and after flood events. Snowball sampling yielded interviewees across both high- and low-risk areas for flood events, indicating vulnerability may be widespread and undocumented in formal ways. Residents described exposure to diverse risk factors for chronic and infectious diseases, particularly for seniors and young children, and emphasized stressors associated with repeated economic loss and uncertainty. Opinions varied on the adequacy, responsibility, and equity of local and federal relief funding and programs. We expand knowledge of flood-related vulnerability, offer innovative suggestions for risk communication based on residents’ experiences, and recommend additional research for documenting patterns of recurrent flooding and response, even for precipitation events that are not characterized as extreme or disaster-level in the media or by agencies. These findings should guide local public health, emergency preparedness, sustainability, water and sewage, and community leaders in post-industrial cities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“We’re Just Sitting Ducks”: Recurrent Household Flooding as An Underreported Environmental Health Threat in Detroit’s Changing Climate

Sampson¹,

Price²,

Kassem³

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To incentivize coastal residents to adopt flood mitigation measures that are proportional to the actual risk, it is essentially important to ensure the accuracy of flood hazard zone designation in flood maps. A big barrier to effectively updating flood maps is the concern over costs that tends to dominate local discussions [55]. The challenge of frequently updating flood maps on FEMA's end thus puts the risk communication task on the shoulders of local governments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting support for flood mitigation based on flood insurance purchase behavior

Shao

Feng

Lin

2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the decision-making mechanism people rely upon to mitigate flood risk? Applying Bayesian Network modeling to a comprehensive survey dataset for the US Gulf Coast, we find that the overall support for flood mitigation can be inferred from flood insurance purchase behavior (i.e. without insurance versus with insurance purchased mandatorily, voluntarily, or both). Therefore, we propose a theoretical decision-making mechanism composed of two dimensions including informed flood risk and sense of insecurity. The informed flood risk is the primary determinant on one's overall support for flood mitigation. Risk mitigation decisions are largely contingent on the level of risk that is effectively conveyed to individuals. Additionally, sense of insecurity plays a moderate role in determining individuals' overall support for flood mitigation. The sense of insecurity can move people toward overall support for mitigation, but the effect is not as large as the informed risk. Results of this study have fundamental policy implications. The flood risk informed by Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood maps not only provides the compulsory basis for flood insurance purchase but also determines individuals' overall support for flood mitigation. Flood map inaccuracy can immensely mislead individuals' overall risk mitigation decision. Meanwhile, this flood risk mitigation decision-making mechanism inferred from a survey data in the US Gulf Coast needs to be tested and validated elsewhere.

show abstract

“…However, we suggest that these efforts underestimate the potential risk of contaminates being redistributed by flood for several reasons. First, some of the most widely utilized flood estimates, produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have been demonstrated to underestimate future flood risks because they do not consider the impacts of climate change [10,12]. Additionally, FEMA maps are heavily influence by local politics, where local officials can choose whether certain areas are listed as a flood zone or not, due to requisite insurance liabilities associated with flood zones [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, some of the most widely utilized flood estimates, produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have been demonstrated to underestimate future flood risks because they do not consider the impacts of climate change [10,12]. Additionally, FEMA maps are heavily influence by local politics, where local officials can choose whether certain areas are listed as a flood zone or not, due to requisite insurance liabilities associated with flood zones [12]. Second, most research employs Superfund sites as the unit of analysis representing contaminated sites, limiting their list to less than approximately 2,000 contaminated sites [13–16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic trajectories under future climate conditions

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extreme weather events, driven by changing climatic conditions, interact with our built environment by distributing—or redistributing—environmental risk and damaging physical infrastructure. We focus on the role of extreme weather events in the distribution of toxic substances within and between residential communities in the largest cities in the United States (US). We explore the impact of projected inland and coastal flooding on the redistribution of toxicity from known contaminated sites, and how patterns of toxic flow change the total population and social demographics of the population at risk from toxic materials. We use the Urban Adaptation Assessment and data on toxic site locations from the US government to evaluate risk of toxin dispersion from flooding in cities and down to the census tract level for the period 2021–2061. We demonstrate that future climate conditions significantly increase the risk of the dispersion of toxins from contaminated sites by 2041.

show abstract

Drawing lines: FEMA and the politics of mapping flood zones

Cited by 89 publications

References 11 publications

“We’re Just Sitting Ducks”: Recurrent Household Flooding as An Underreported Environmental Health Threat in Detroit’s Changing Climate

“We’re Just Sitting Ducks”: Recurrent Household Flooding as An Underreported Environmental Health Threat in Detroit’s Changing Climate

Predicting support for flood mitigation based on flood insurance purchase behavior

Toxic trajectories under future climate conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About