A review of the community flood risk management literature in the USA: lessons for improving community resilience to floods

Abstract

This study systematically reviews the diverse body of research on community flood risk management in the USA to identify knowledge gaps and develop innovative and practical lessons to aid flood management decision-makers in their efforts to reduce flood losses. The authors discovered and reviewed 60 studies that met the selection criteria (e.g., study is written in English, is empirical, focuses on flood risk management at the community level in the USA, etc.). Upon reviewing the major findings from each study, the authors identified seven practical lessons that, if implemented, could not only help flood management decision-makers better understand communities' flood risks, but could also reduce the impacts of flood disasters and improve communities' resilience to future flood disasters. These seven lessons include: (1) recognizing that acquiring open space and conserving wetlands are some of the most effective approaches to reducing flood losses; (2) recognizing that, depending on a community's flood risks, different development patterns are more effective at reducing flood losses; (3) considering the costs and benefits of participating in FEMA's Community Rating System program; (4) engaging community members in the flood planning and recovery processes; (5) considering socially vulnerable populations in flood risk management programs; (6) relying on a variety of floodplain management tools to delineate flood risk; and (7) ensuring that flood mitigation plans are fully implemented and continually revised.

Understanding and assessing flood risk in Vietnam: Current status, persisting gaps, and future directions

“…In flood risk management literature globally, there is still a divide between the social and the natural sciences, in which the first perspective often addresses social interactions and flood risk governance, and the latter focuses on tools to predict flood probabilities and assess vulnerability (Morrison et al, 2018). An inclusion of socio‐economic data into risk and vulnerability assessment has also been proposed in other review studies of climate risk, such as a consideration of socially vulnerable populations for community flood risk management (Jurgilevich et al, 2017; Tyler, Sadiq, & Noonan, 2019). This review thus advocates a departure from the current focus on flood hazards and single method use (e.g., only flood hazard modelling), towards an application of integrated perspectives that consider flood hazards, exposure of humans, ecosystems, infrastructure and (cultural, economic) assets, and systems' vulnerabilities as well as a variety of assessment methods.…”

The Role of Urban Growth in Resilience of Communities Under Flood Risk

“…7. Group III studies generally have focused on nonstructural mitigation plans and their effectiveness in practice, as noted in the review by Tyler et al (2019). Such studies rely heavily on empirical approaches and statistical data collected from surveys or insurance claims to determine the effectiveness of land-use policies.…”

“…Although some studies have considered limited mitigation strategies in their risk assessment framework, mainly structural measures such as building elevation, they have not considered the effect of nonstructural measures such as land‐use planning and socioeconomic stimuli adopted by these programs on future flood losses. Consequently, they have not offered any practical solutions for moving towards a resilient community, considering urban growth. Group III studies generally have focused on nonstructural mitigation plans and their effectiveness in practice, as noted in the review by Tyler et al (2019). Such studies rely heavily on empirical approaches and statistical data collected from surveys or insurance claims to determine the effectiveness of land‐use policies.…”

Flood Mapping Uncertainty from a Restoration Perspective: A Practical Case Study

“…Deterministic flood hazard boundary delineations tend to induce the use of the resulting information for human development patterns closely following them [7,8]. This has revealed shortcomings as a result of neglecting uncertainty when delineating flood boundaries, since flood insurance claims outside regulatory flood hazard boundaries have occurred more frequently [8][9][10][11]. Addressing uncertainty can not only support the decision-making process on direct considerations regarding outputs of hydraulic/hydrologic studies but also on data acquisition.…”