The Safe Development Paradox in Flood Risk Management: A Critical Review

Abstract

Climate change and continued urban development in flood-prone areas exacerbate flood risks. Flood Risk Management authorities often turn to structural protection measures to minimise losses. However, these measures often lead to infrastructural lock-ins with potential unintended consequences as increased safety can induce increased development, ultimately leading to higher losses in the event of failures of the structural safe-guards in place. This process has been referred to as the Safe Development Paradox: a cross-cutting science-policy-practice challenge that requires a systematic understanding in the context of climate change and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, there are no comprehensive review studies, to date, that summarize the state of knowledge of the Safe Development Paradox. This paper provides the first evidence base through a critical review of the state-of-the-art and quantitative analysis of the peer-reviewed English-language literature since 2000, highlighting key knowledge gaps and issues hindering progress in addressing the Safe Development Paradox. It was identified that current research is compounded by a lack of consistent terminology, limited geographic distribution of case studies, and skewed emphasis on fluvial flooding. The review ends with potential directions across the science, policy, and practice domains for increasing knowledge and tackling the Safe Development Paradox.

Unintended Consequences of Disaster Mitigation: A Systematic Review of the Safe Development Paradox

“…However, disaster mitigation targeting landslides and multi-hazards can also trigger the SDP and LE. Also, similar to other reviews, we found that a key limitation in SDP and LE research is its narrow geographical focus, particularly the underrepresentation of the Global South (Breen et al 2022).…”

“…3), with the majority based in USA (n = 12), followed by Italy (n = 5) and Australia (n = 4). This distribution highlights the disparity in research focus between the Global North (n = 32) and the Global South (n = 9), a pattern also observed in previous literature reviews (Vanelli et al 2021;Fischer et al 2021;Breen et al 2022).…”

“…Their long-term consequences challenge traditional risk reduction strategies and underscore the need for a more holistic approach to risk management. As a result of their potential implications, both these phenomena have been increasingly being studied (Breen et al 2022). The LE was rst observed by White (1945) in a comprehensive assessment of ood adaptation.…”

“…The authors also identi ed the need for a comprehensive assessment of the social, technical, and hydrological conditions that can trigger the LE and the extent to which they can occur. Additional gaps were observed by Breen et al (2022), such as terminology inconsistency, geographical biases, and an overemphasis on uvial ooding. Both these studies pointed to research gaps that can be attributed to a research design choices or methodological shortcomings.…”

Cap. 31. Adaptación. En: La Quinta Evaluación Nacional del Clima

“…La mala adaptación puede producirse, por ejemplo, si las infraestructuras de ingeniería (p. ej., diques) o los programas de respuesta ante desastres crean una falsa sensación de seguridad que incentiva el desarrollo continuo en zonas peligrosas, lo que a su vez produce mayores pérdidas en caso de falla del sistema, una situación conocida como la paradoja del desarrollo seguro 101,102,103 . La adaptación ajustada a un contexto específico puede volverse mala adaptación si se ve sometida a un tipo de peligro o contexto diferente, como cuando los espacios abarrotados de los refugios comunitarios o los centros para refrescarse contribuyen a la propagación de enfermedades 104,105 .…”