Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Modeling flood risk as a public policy problem

Abstract

Socio-hydrology views human activities as endogenous to water system dynamics; it is the interaction between human and biophysical processes that threatens the viability of current water systems through positive feedbacks and unintended consequences. Di Baldassarre et al. implement socio-hydrology as a flood risk problem using the concept of social memory as a vehicle to link human perceptions to flood damage. Their mathematical model has heuristic value in comparing potential flood damages in green versus technological societies. It can also support communities in exploring the potential consequences of policy decisions and evaluating critical policy tradeoffs, for example, between flood protection and economic development. The concept of social memory does not, however, adequately capture the social processes whereby public perceptions are translated into policy action, including the pivotal role played by the media in intensifying or attenuating perceived flood risk, the success of policy entrepreneurs in keeping flood hazard on the public agenda during short windows of opportunity for policy action, and different societal approaches to managing flood risk that derive from cultural values and economic interests. We endorse the value of seeking to capture these dynamics in a simplified conceptual framework, but favor a broader conceptualization of socio-hydrology that includes a knowledge exchange component, including the way modeling insights and scientific results are communicated to floodplain managers. The social processes used to disseminate the products of socio-hydrological research are as important as the research results themselves in determining whether modeling is used for realworld decision making.

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes

“…Societal response to hydrological changes is very complex and highly unpredictable as it strongly depends on economic interests and cultural values. In this context, we fully agree with Gober and Wheater [2015] on the fact that, for instance, changes in societal memory are much more complex than modeled in our paper. They are also driven by, e.g., media, which can amplify or attenuate perceptions of risk, and policy entrepreneurs, who can make efforts to keep flood risk high on the public agenda.…”

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Simulating hydrologic‐human interactions

“…The amounts of money received over time by some have exceeded the value of their property. This example is one of many cited by Di Baldassarre et al [2015], Gober and Wheater [2015], Sivapalan [2015], and Troy et al [2015], and other authors cited in their references that show the dominance of social and political processes over economic and environmental ones. While the contributions of these authors are all contributing to the development of this socio-hydrology component of our water resources research, to further this effort we will need the help of many others who are expert in other disciplines besides hydrology and engineering.…”

“…Di Baldassarre et al [2015] and the responses of Gober and Wheater [2015], Sivapalan [2015], and Troy et al…”

Moving sociohydrology forward: a synthesis across studies

“…Quantifying and understanding the feedbacks in sociohydrologic systems, essentially understanding the fundamentals of the systems, is needed before it can be applied for policy making. In addition, simply developing the science is insufficient: how the knowledge is disseminated to policy makers may determine the utility of sociohydrology and its models (Gober and Wheater, 2015). As Sivapalan (2015) points out, the natural sciences and social sciences can mutually benefit from working together on sociohydrologic problems, each with their respective strengths; as Gober and Wheater (2015) discuss, there is a rich literature and a need to include policy makers and policy scientists in sociohydrology.…”