The normative dimensions of flood risk management: Two types of flood harm

Abstract

The normative dimensions of flood harm in flood risk management (FRM) have become salient in a milieu of extreme flood events. In this article, two types of flood harm will be discussed. They are namely, risk harm and outcome harm. Whilst risk harm suggests that risk imposition by structural FRM measures is a type of harm that can increase vulnerability and diminish wellbeing, outcome harm is manifested in deliberate flooding used to protect certain privileged communities at the expense of harming other less privileged ones. Risk-imposing parties are required to seek consent for imposing new risks. In contrast, outcome harm as deliberate flooding is far more pernicious and should only be exercised in extreme situations with ample provisions for restitution and recovery. The aim of this article is to foreground and examine these under-explored notions of flood harm in the FRM discourse and in tandem, to expand the normative dimensions of FRM in a milieu where difficult ethical choices abound.

River Cities in Asia

“…The decision of where FCI should be built to protect whom involves value judgment, and is not just a technical exercise (Chan and Liao 2022). The decision made in 1970 by the Central Government to exclude Shezidao from the TAFCP was based solely on economics through the use of a cost-benefit analysis.…”

“…This social downside of flood control affects many other socioeconomically marginalized communities around the world. This needs not only to be acknowledged, but also to be addressed (Chan and Liao 2022).…”

The ethics of wicked problems: an exegesis

“…Contrary to the common perception that there are neither right nor wrong answers in ethics, there are, however, unacceptable or wrong answers—especially in planning. Intentionally diverting floodwater to a location of lesser economic worth in order to protect another location with greater economic worth is deliberate harm, which is an unpopular practice to be avoided if possible but swiftly turns into an outright wrong when people neither consent to, nor were prior informed of the intentional flooding of their homes (Chan and Liao 2022 ). Moral rules, which are often cast as prohibitions, require avoiding causing evils or harms (Gert 1998 , p. 116); yet they do not obligate the pursuit of all possible good.…”

Flood Preparedness in United Kingdom and China: A Comparison Study Focusing on Social and Economic Factors

“…According to Klein et al (2003) maintaining and enhancing the adaption capacity is the main goal of resilience. Chan and Liao (2022) believe that there are mainly two harms that flood will cause to communities -risk harm and outcome harm. Risk harm is identified as increasing the local community's vulnerability and diminishing human well-being, whereas outcome harm is pernicious and should only be exercised in extreme situations., and Nola (2019) state that flood impacts include damaging economic and social.…”