No abstract

Climate change involves human societies in problems of loss: depletion, disappearance, and collapse. The climate changes and changes other things, in specifically destructive ways. What can and should sociology endeavour to know about this particular form of social change? This article outlines the sociology of loss as a project for sociological engagement with climate change, one that breaks out of environmental sociology as the conventional silo of research and bridges to other subfields. I address four interrelated dimensions of loss that climate change presents: the materiality of loss; the politics of loss; knowledge of loss; and practices of loss. Unlike “sustainability”—the more dominant framing in the social sciences of climate change—the sociology of loss examines what does, will, or must disappear rather than what can or should be sustained. Though the sociology of loss requires a confrontation with the melancholia of suffering people and places, it also speaks to new solidarities and positive transformations.

How do people respond to the ways in which insurance mediates environmental risks? Socio-cultural risk research has characterized and analyzed the experiential dimension of risk, but has yet to focus on insurance, which is a key institution shaping how people understand and relate to risk. Insurance not only assesses and communicates risk; it also economizes it, making the problem on the ground not just one of risk, but also of value. This article addresses these issues with an investigation of the social life of the flood insurance rate map, the central technology of the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), as it grafts a new landscape of 'value at risk' onto the physical and social world of New York City in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Like other risk technologies, ubiquitous in modern societies as decision-making and planning tools, the map disseminates information about value and risk in order to tame uncertainty and enable prudent action oriented toward the future. However, drawing together interview, ethnographic, and documentary data, I find that for its users on the ground, the map does not simply measure 'value at risk' in ways that produce clear strategies for protecting property values from flooding. Instead, it puts values-beyond simply the financial worth of places-at risk, as well as implicates past, present, and future risks beyond simply flooding. By informing and enlarging the stakes of what needs protecting, and from what, I argue that plural and interacting 'values at risk' shape how people live with and respond to environmental risks that are mediated by insurance technologies.

In preparing for and responding to natural hazards and disasters, the welfare state establishes a social contract, distributing responsibilities for what will be collectively managed and what will be individually borne. Drawing on archival, interview, and ethnographic data, this article examines the renegotiation of that social contract through the lens of contested efforts to reform the massively indebted US National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) from 2011 to 2014. In the face of a morally charged debate about deservingness and individual choice, Congress passed legislation that committed to incorporating need-based considerations to the NFIP for the first time. The result defined “deservingness” in terms of ability to pay for risk exposure, qualifying an individualization of responsibility for addressing the problem of flood loss—a problem that might instead demand broader risk sharing, particularly as climate change worsens the threat of flooding.

Flooding risk results from complex interactions between hydrological hazards (e.g., riverine inundation during periods of heavy rainfall), exposure, vulnerability (e.g., the potential for structural damage or loss of life), and resilience (how well we recover, learn from, and adapt to past floods). Building on recent coupled conceptualizations of these complex interactions, we characterize human–flood interactions (collective memory and risk-enduring attitude) at a more comprehensive scale than has been attempted to date across 50 US metropolitan statistical areas with a sociohydrologic (SH) model calibrated with accessible local data (historical records of annual peak streamflow, flood insurance loss claims, active insurance policy records, and population density). A cluster analysis on calibrated SH model parameter sets for metropolitan areas identified two dominant behaviors: 1) “risk-enduring” cities with lower flooding defenses and longer memory of past flood loss events and 2) “risk-averse” cities with higher flooding defenses and reduced memory of past flooding. These divergent behaviors correlated with differences in local stream flashiness indices (i.e., the frequency and rapidity of daily changes in streamflow), maximum dam heights, and the proportion of White to non-White residents in US metropolitan areas. Risk-averse cities tended to exist within regions characterized by flashier streamflow conditions, larger dams, and larger proportions of White residents. Our research supports the development of SH models in urban metropolitan areas and the design of risk management strategies that consider both demographically heterogeneous populations, changing flood defenses, and temporal changes in community risk perceptions and tolerance.