scispace - formally typeset

Journal ArticleDOI

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

01 Apr 2019-Natural Hazards (Springer Netherlands)-Vol. 96, Iss: 3, pp 1223-1248

AbstractThis 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.

Topics: Flood mitigation (76%), Flood myth (64%), Floodplain (59%), Community resilience (55%), Natural hazard (51%)

Summary (6 min read)

1 Introduction

  • Furthermore, scholars argue that federal flood policies and programs in the USA are costly, ineffective, and have inadvertently encouraged development in high-risk flood zones (Cigler 2017; Strother 2016).
  • The authors chose to exclusively focus on community flood risk management in the USA to ensure that the practical lessons identified are relevant and applicable to flood management decision-makers in the USA.
  • The third section describes the methodology, including the search strategy and the selection criteria.

2 Flood risk governance in the USA

  • Initial attempts to manage flood risks in the USA date back to the early 1900s, with the federal government assuming principal responsibility (Galloway 2008).
  • Following the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act, states began to assume a major role in floodplain management as they were required to adhere to NFIP standards and began advising and supporting their participating NFIP localities (Mittler et al. 2006).
  • To incentivize communities to implement floodplain management activities that go beyond those required under the NFIP, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) created the Community Rating System (CRS) program.
  • Conversely, a class 1 community represents a community that has accrued the maximum amount of credit points, thus receiving a 45% discount in flood insurance premiums (so long as the community is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area [SFHA], an area with a one percent chance of flooding in any given year).
  • Whereas emergency managers are responsible for coordinating efforts to mitigate, prepare, respond, and recover from any and all disasters and emergencies, floodplain managers are responsible for developing, implementing, and overseeing the community’s floodplain management program.

3.1 Selection criteria

  • One of the authors reviewed the title and abstract of all the papers generated by each keyword search to determine whether the paper met the criteria for inclusion.
  • If a paper met the criteria for inclusion, the researcher obtained a full-text version of the article.
  • If the paper did not meet the criteria, this author listed it in the category of exclusions and noted the reason for exclusion (e.g., not written in English, did not focus on the USA, etc.).
  • If this researcher could not determine whether the article met the selection criteria by looking at the title and abstract, a full-text version of the article was obtained for further inquiry in order to make the final eligibility determination.

3.2 Search strategy

  • Stage one involved searching papers indexed in three academic databases—Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web of Science (Bubeck et al.
  • The authors began the search with this keyword because studies examining community flood risk management in the USA typically reference FEMA’s CRS program.
  • 2017, the authors used Google Scholar Alerts to receive additional studies that contained any of the keywords until December 31, 2017.
  • After the review process, 44 studies matched the selection criteria (see Fig. 1).
  • These experts are from different disciplines such as city and regional planning, sociology, urban and regional sciences, and economics.

3.3 Coding strategy

  • Two of the authors reviewed and coded the 60 studies included in the review.
  • Specifically, these authors identified the methodological qualities of each study such as the research question, study area, sample size, dependent and independent variables, data sources, 1 3 analytical approach, and major findings.
  • After reviewing and coding the ten articles, these two individuals compared their codes and discovered only one discrepancy in codes.
  • The authors resolved this discrepancy by consensus.
  • The remaining 50 studies were evenly distributed to the two authors and were coded individually.

4.1 Methodological qualities of included studies

  • Two of the authors coded various methodological qualities of the 60 studies included in this review.
  • Then, the authors identified the study location for each study, which was measured as the specific state(s) where each study was conducted.
  • The authors also coded whether the study employed quantitative or qualitative methodologies as well as whether the study relied on primary or secondary data.
  • Finally, the authors recorded study sample sizes and found the maximum and minimum sample sizes reported are 1.8 million and 1, respectively.
  • 1 3 In addition to assessing the methodological qualities of the 60 studies, the authors ascertained whether there has been a general upward trend in the number of published community flood risk management studies as well as where the majority of the community flood risk management studies have been published.

5 Discussion

  • While these lessons are developed to be relevant to flood management decision-makers throughout the USA, the authors recognize that these lessons may not be suitable for every community.
  • Hence, the authors argue that, when applicable, flood management decision-makers should consider implementing these lessons.
  • The level of applicability will largely depend on a community’s flood risks and resources such as funding, staff, and experience.
  • The authors organize these lessons based on the previous themes identified: mitigating community flood losses; FEMA’s Community Rating System program; perceptions and responses to flood events and flood policies; understanding communities’ vulnerabilities and flood risks; flood mitigation tools; and communities’ efforts to plan for flood events.

5.1 Mitigating community flood losses

  • Recognize that acquiring open space and conserving wetlands are some of the most effective approaches to reducing flood losses, also known as Lesson 1.
  • Acquiring open space refers to a three-step process, whereby emphasis is placed on locating high-risk, flood-prone areas, preventing high-density development in these areas, and using these areas as a means to store flood waters (Brody et al. 2007a, 2017).
  • Participating in FEMA’s buyout program is an additional method for acquiring open space.
  • In light of this understanding, scholars (e.g., Brody et al. 2001; Kousky and Walls 2014) have sought to determine what specific development patterns are most effective at stemming flood losses based on a community’s flood risk.

5.2 FEMA’s Community Rating System program

  • Consider the costs and benefits of participating in FEMA’s CRS program, also known as Lesson 3.
  • By adopting additional flood mitigation measures, communities receive reductions in their flood insurance premiums.
  • The extant research indicates that CRS participating communities experience substantially less flood losses compared to communities that do not participate in the program (Highfield and Brody 2017).
  • Moreover, Highfield and Brody (2013) find that the following three CRS activities result in the greatest reduction in flood damages: freeboard requirements (i.e., elevating structures above the base flood elevation), open space protection (i.e., limiting development in flood-prone areas and using these areas to store flood waters), and flood protection (e.g., retrofitting buildings and constructing small flood control projects).
  • One practical lesson from these studies is that local flood management decision-makers should consider the costs and benefits of participating in the CRS program if they have not done so already.

5.3 Perceptions and responses to flood events and flood policies

  • Engage community members in the flood planning and recovery processes, also known as Lesson 4.
  • When flood disasters occur, they provide an opportunity for communities to learn from their experiences and to adjust their policies moving forward (Albright and Crow 2015a).
  • How these policies are developed, however, depends on the individuals and groups that are involved in the discussions and decision-making processes (Albright and Crow 2015a, b).
  • Indeed, Albright and Crow’s (2015a) analysis of public participatory processes in the aftermath of the 2013 Colorado floods shows that who participates in flood recovery processes 1 3 influences how flood risks are perceived at the community level.
  • Findings also suggest that communities with more open and deliberative public participatory processes lead to greater change and learning (Albright and Crow 2015a).

5.4 Understanding communities’ vulnerabilities and flood risks

  • Consider socially vulnerable populations in flood risk management programs, also known as Lesson 5.
  • Furthermore, studies indicate that communities containing more socially vulnerable populations are not only less prepared for flood disasters, but also face higher flood risks (Chakraborty et al. 2014; Zahran et  al. 2008).
  • As a result, flood management decision-makers should invest in flood management activities specifically for socially vulnerable populations before, during, and after flood events.
  • Communities can purchase wheelchair-accessible vans that could be used to evacuate individuals with access and functional needs during flood events.
  • Act addressed this issue to some extent as it repealed certain rate increases and stopped policy increases for some subsidized policyholders (FEMA 2014b), floodplain management decision-makers should remain cognizant of the financial constraints socially vulnerable populations face when purchasing flood insurance.

5.5 Flood mitigation tools

  • The 100-year floodplain has historically been used as the primary tool for determining a community’s flood risks.
  • Studies indicate that the 100-year floodplain may not be a sufficient marker for delineating communities’ flood risks (Brody et al. 2012a, b; Patterson and Doyle 2009).
  • Moreover, Patterson and Doyle’s (2009) analysis of five counties in North Carolina indicates that there was a significant increase in flood exposure immediately outside the 100-year floodplain.
  • In fact, some communities are still relying on the flood maps that were first created in the 1970s and 1980s (Gallagher 2014).
  • An additional explanation for these findings is that NFIP building standards only apply to those inside the regulatory floodplain.

5.6 Communities’ efforts to plan for flood events

  • Ensure that flood mitigation plans are fully implemented and continually revised, also known as Lesson 7.
  • To apply and receive funding under FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance grant programs, local communities must develop comprehensive multi-hazard mitigation plans (FEMA 2015).
  • Somewhat surprisingly, studies examining community-level planning for flood events indicate that the development and quality of mitigation plans have little effect on flood losses (Bailey 2017; Kang 2009).
  • There are a few explanations for these findings.
  • Another explanation for these findings is that while communities with higher flood risks and more frequent disasters tend to develop better mitigation plans and implement additional hazard mitigation policies, NFIP flood policies often lead to increased development in flood risk areas, which in turn limits the effectiveness of mitigation plans.

6.1 Mitigating community flood losses

  • The majority of these studies are limited in terms of their scope and generalizability.
  • Indeed, most of the studies included under this theme assessed the effectiveness of these strategies in communities along the Gulf Coast or within one watershed (e.g., Brody et al. 2007a, 2008, 2011, 2014).
  • This is especially true given that recent reports indicate that flood disasters are becoming more prevalent in inland states as opposed to coastal states (Pew Charitable Trusts 2018).

6.2 FEMA’s Community Rating System program

  • Studies assessing the CRS have generally relied on secondary data and have employed both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs to determine the factors influencing initial and continued participation (e.g., Sadiq and Noonan 2015a, b).
  • They are limited in that they do not provide insights on the decision-making processes surrounding participation.
  • Hence, scholars should consider 1 3 gathering primary data and employing qualitative methodologies to further establish the factors influencing participation (Sadiq and Noonan 2015a).
  • Determining the drivers motivating communities to adopt certain CRS activities represents an additional area of research that deserves more empirical attention.

6.3 Perceptions and responses to flood events and policies

  • Several knowledge gaps exist in regard to understanding perceptions and responses to flood events and policies.
  • There is a need for more research that establishes what stakeholders should be involved during both the planning and recovery stages (Albright and Crow 2015b).
  • Similarly, there is a need to further establish what factors are driving participation in flood planning and recovery processes (Albright and Crow 2015b).
  • There is also a need for more research that examines how individuals perceive flood risks, where they obtain information on their flood risks, and what type of information they are consuming (Kousky and Kunreuther 2010).
  • Such knowledge would improve their understanding on what communication and information modes are most effective.

6.4 Understanding communities’ vulnerabilities and flood risks

  • Similar to the previous sections, small sample sizes and limited geographic focus are the main limitations associated with studies included under this theme.
  • Hence, multistate and national-level studies would prove beneficial in further understanding why certain communities are more vulnerable to flood disasters and have greater flood risks.
  • An additional limitation associated with this theme is that studies assessing the relationship between socially vulnerable populations and flood casualties have not yet developed empirical conclusions about why these individuals are significantly more likely to be harmed by floods (Zahran et  al. 2008).
  • Qualitative studies would help remedy this knowledge gap as such studies could provide a better understanding of how socially vulnerable groups experience flood events and the challenges associated with preparedness and recovery (Chakraborty et al. 2014; Zahran et al. 2008).
  • Finally, more research on the factors influencing local communities to reduce their vulnerabilities through mitigation is needed (Brody et al. 2009b, 2010).

6.5 Flood mitigation tools

  • Studies assessing the tools available to floodplain managers for delineating flood risks suggest that multiple flood mapping models and tools should be employed.
  • More work is needed to determine which models and tools are most effective at capturing flood risks.

6.6 Communities’ efforts to plan for flood events

  • Given that only two of the 60 studies included in this review explicitly looked at how communities plan for floods, much more research is needed.
  • A national-level study that examines the relationship between plan quality, implementation, and flood losses would provide practitioners with a better understanding of how to design and implement plans to ensure their efficacy (Kang 2009).
  • Furthermore, additional attention needs to specifically be given toward plan implementation.
  • Scholars should seek to determine the factors that influence the degree of plan implementation (Kang 2009).
  • Additional focus should also be given toward understanding why some communities do not remain compliant with mandates for mitigation plans and identifying remedies to encourage compliance (Bailey 2017).

7 Conclusion

  • The primary purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the diverse body of research on community flood risk management in the USA.
  • The findings and opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the NSF.
  • Moreover, increasing percentages of sprawling, low-intensity development leads to increases in flood losses Brody and Highfield (2013).
  • In addition, participation in the CRS reduces flood property damages Li and Landry (2018) Communities with larger tax revenues, lower levels of crime and unemployment, and more flood experience have a higher number of CRS points.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

...read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Natural Hazards
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03606-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
A review ofthecommunity ood risk management literature
intheUSA: lessons forimproving community resilience
tooods
JennaTyler
1
· Abdul‑AkeemSadiq
1
· DouglasS.Noonan
2
Received: 10 October 2018 / Accepted: 23 March 2019
© Springer Nature B.V. 2019
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 manage-
ment decision-makers better understand communities’ flood risks, but could also reduce
the impacts of flood disasters and improve communities’ resilience to future flood disas-
ters. These seven lessons include: (1) recognizing that acquiring open space and conserv-
ing wetlands are some of the most effective approaches to reducing flood losses; (2) rec-
ognizing 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 participat-
ing in FEMAs 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 imple-
mented and continually revised.
Keywords Flood risk· Community flood risk management· Community resilience
* Jenna Tyler
jentyler@knights.ucf.edu
Abdul-Akeem Sadiq
abdul-akeem.Sadiq@ucf.edu
Douglas S. Noonan
noonand@iupui.edu
1
School ofPublic Administration, University ofCentral Florida, Orlando, USA
2
School ofPublic andEnvironmental Affairs, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis,
Indianapolis, USA
____________________________________________________
This is the author's manuscript of the article published in final edited form as:
Tyler, J., Sadiq, A.-A., & Noonan, D. S. (2019). A review of the community flood risk management literature in the USA:
Lessons for improving community resilience to floods. Natural Hazards, 96(3), 1223–1248.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03606-3

Natural Hazards
1 3
1 Introduction
Floods have and continue to pose significant threats to communities in the USA (Cigler
2017; Consoer and Milman 2017; Sadiq 2017; Sadiq and Noonan 2015a, b). In fact, of all
the natural hazards, floods are the costliest and result in the most lives lost and property
damage (Cigler 2017; Kick et al. 2011). Recent disasters, including the 2016 Louisiana
floods as well as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, illustrate the devastating impacts
floods can have on local communities in the USA (National Weather Service 2017). The
devastation caused by these disasters and others stems from the interaction of the physi-
cal, social, built, and political environments (Brody etal. 2011). Indeed, persistent devel-
opment along the US coastlines and floodplains coupled with increased precipitation and
rising sea levels has exacerbated communities’ flood risks (Bouwer 2011; Brody et al.
2010). Furthermore, scholars argue that federal flood policies and programs in the USA are
costly, ineffective, and have inadvertently encouraged development in high-risk flood zones
(Cigler 2017; Strother 2016). The US National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for exam-
ple, subsidizes the costs associated with living and doing business in high-risk flood zones
at the expense of taxpayers (Strother 2016).
Amid the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) (2013) prediction of
increases in the frequency and severity of flood disasters engendered by climate change,
there is a potential for increased flood impacts. In light of these predictions, scholars have
argued that a focus on community flood risk management is an effective way to reduce
flood damages in the USA (Pielke and Downton 2000). In this study, the term “commu-
nity” takes on a geographic connotation and refers to a single or collection of states, coun-
ties, and/or neighborhoods. Furthermore, community flood risk management is defined as
actions taken by government and non-government actors, with a purpose to better under-
stand and/or reduce flood risks at the state, county, and/or neighborhood levels (Mees etal.
2016). Examples of community flood risk management activities include, but are not lim-
ited to, adopting structural (e.g., constructing dams, levees, seawalls, etc.) and non-struc-
tural (e.g., regulating land use, revitalizing wetlands, etc.) mitigation measures, drafting
and implementing comprehensive flood mitigation plans, and providing community mem-
bers with information on flood risks (Brody etal. 2010). Mitigation, in this study, refers to
actions taken to reduce flood losses. The authors chose to exclusively focus on community
flood risk management in the USA to ensure that the practical lessons identified are rele-
vant and applicable to flood management decision-makers in the USA. For example, while
there is an abundance of studies on community flood risk management around the world,
the policies, practices, and approaches that are relevant and effective in other countries may
not be as relevant and effective in the USA. Indeed, differences in governance structures
and processes, topography, weather patterns, and social vulnerabilities will have implica-
tions for developing effective community flood risk management strategies (Jongman etal.
2018).
Addressing flood risks at the community level is important because flood risks involve
interdependent physical, political, social, and ecological interactions (Brody etal. 2011).
In addition, the community level is amenable to implementing comprehensive flood risk
management initiatives. This partly explains why the number of studies on flood risk man-
agement conducted at the community level in the USA has steadily increased over the past
decade. Given the importance of understanding flood risk management at the community
level and the myriad studies done on this topic, there is a compelling need to synthesize
this large body of research as a means to identify practical lessons to improve communities

Natural Hazards
1 3
resilience to future flood disasters. Resilience, in this study, refers to a community’s ability
to absorb the effects of a flood disaster and adapt to reduce the effects of future flood dis-
asters (Cutter etal. 2008). Moreover, scholars (e.g., Morrison etal. 2017) have called for
increased transfer of important findings on flood risk management from the academic com-
munity to practitioners and policymakers. The present study addresses these needs by sys-
tematically reviewing the diverse body of research on community flood risk management
in the USA. In doing so, it identifies knowledge gaps as well as innovative and 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.
We organize the remainder of the paper as follows. The next section discusses flood
risk governance in the USA. The third section describes the methodology, including the
search strategy and the selection criteria. The fourth section presents the results and major
findings, and the fifth section identifies practical lessons for flood management decision-
makers to improve their communities’ resilience to future flood disasters. The sixth section
describes different knowledge gaps and identifies directions for future research. The paper
concludes by discussing the implications of our findings for flood risk management schol-
ars and practitioners and highlighting a few study limitations.
2 Flood risk governance intheUSA
Initial attempts to manage flood risks in the USA date back to the early 1900s, with the fed-
eral government assuming principal responsibility (Galloway 2008). For example, in 1936,
Congress passed the Flood Control Act, which provided the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and other federal agencies with the authority to design, develop, and
maintain hundreds of civil engineering projects (e.g., dams, levees, and dikes) to reduce
flood losses (Haddow etal. 2011). Through the 1960s, the federal government maintained
this structural approach to flood management (Galloway 2008). In fact, it was not until
the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 that the federal government took
a serious interest in engaging in more non-structural flood mitigation measures. A major
component of this act was the establishment of the NFIP. The purpose of the NFIP was and
continues to be to reduce flood risks by requiring participating communities to adhere to
a set of floodplain management standards and to offer flood insurance to properties with a
significant flood risk (Horn and Brown 2018). Following the passage of the National Flood
Insurance Act, states began to assume a major role in floodplain management as they were
required to adhere to NFIP standards and began advising and supporting their participating
NFIP localities (Mittler etal. 2006).
To incentivize communities to implement floodplain management activities that go
beyond those required under the NFIP, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) created the Community Rating System (CRS) program. The CRS is a federal,
voluntary program whereby communities that participate in the CRS are eligible to receive
reductions in their flood insurance premiums. If a community decides to participate in the
program, they accumulate credit points as they adopt additional flood mitigation activities.
Examples of creditable activities include, but are not limited to, establishing higher regula-
tory standards, engaging in outreach projects, and constructing dams and levees (see the
CRS Coordinator Manual for a full list of the 19 creditable activities: https ://www.fema.
gov/media -libra ry/asset s/docum ents/8768). As communities accrue credit points, they

Natural Hazards
1 3
improve their CRS class. CRS classes range from 10 to 1. A class 10 community represents
a community that does not participate in the CRS or that has not accrued enough credit
points to receive any discounts in flood insurance premiums. Conversely, a class 1 com-
munity represents a community that has accrued the maximum amount of credit points,
thus receiving a 45% discount in flood insurance premiums (so long as the community
is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area [SFHA], an area with a one percent chance of
flooding in any given year). Intermediate classes receive discounts in flood insurance pre-
miums in increments of 5%.
Today, flood risk management is primarily a function of local governments (e.g., cities
and counties), especially local emergency and floodplain managers. Whereas emergency
managers are responsible for coordinating efforts to mitigate, prepare, respond, and recover
from any and all disasters and emergencies, floodplain managers are responsible for devel-
oping, implementing, and overseeing the community’s floodplain management program.
This frequently includes “enforcing the community’s flood damage prevention ordinance,
updating flood maps, plans, and policies of the community, and any of the activities related
to administration of the National Flood Insurance Program” (Association of State Flood-
plain Managers 2010, p. 1). Depending on the size and structure of a locality, the emer-
gency and floodplain manager may be a dual job title and, thus, occupied by the same local
government employee. However, in other communities, the floodplain manager is a second
job title of a city or county community development director, engineer, building code offi-
cial, or zoning officer (Tyler 2018; Tyler and Sadiq 2018). Rarely, is a floodplain manager
the sole function of a local government employee. Rather than using the terms floodplain
manager or emergency manager to describe the individuals that play a decision-making
role in managing communities’ flood risks, the authors use the term “flood management
decision-makers” to include policymakers and other agencies and groups that are involved
in making decisions to minimize a community’s flood risks.
3 Methods
3.1 Selection criteria
The selection criteria used to identify studies for inclusion are: (1) written in English; (2)
focus on flood risk management at the community level; (3) examine the USA; (4) peer-
reviewed journal article, conference paper, conference proceeding, or dissertation; (5) are
empirical by relying on experience or observations (studies might use primary and/or sec-
ondary data as well as quantitative and/or qualitative data). One of the authors reviewed
the title and abstract of all the papers generated by each keyword search to determine
whether the paper met the criteria for inclusion. If a paper met the criteria for inclusion, the
researcher obtained a full-text version of the article. However, if the paper did not meet the
criteria, this author listed it in the category of exclusions and noted the reason for exclusion
(e.g., not written in English, did not focus on the USA, etc.). If this researcher could not
determine whether the article met the selection criteria by looking at the title and abstract,
a full-text version of the article was obtained for further inquiry in order to make the final
eligibility determination.

Natural Hazards
1 3
3.2 Search strategy
We adopted a three-stage approach to identify relevant studies. Stage one involved search-
ing papers indexed in three academic databases—Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Web
of Science (Bubeck etal. 2012; Morrison etal. 2017; Thompson etal. 2017). The search
of these academic databases began in May of 2017 using the keyword “Community Rating
System” and “FEMA.” We began the search with this keyword because studies examining
community flood risk management in the USA typically reference FEMAs CRS program.
This keyword search yielded 890 results from Google Scholar, 29 from Science Direct, and
six from Web of Science. We identified additional studies by searching the three literary
databases using the following keywords “community flood risk management,” “commu-
nity flood policy,” “community flood risk,” and “community flood management.” These
searches generated an additional 202 unique studies. Although we completed the keyword
searches on June 16, 2017, we used Google Scholar Alerts to receive additional studies
that contained any of the keywords until December 31, 2017. These alerts yielded 45 more
studies. In total, we screened and reviewed 1,172 papers and 1,053 papers, respectively.
After the review process, 44 studies matched the selection criteria (see Fig.1).
In stage two, we e-mailed a list containing the initial 44 studies to six experts on com-
munity flood risk management to validate our list and to add any missing eligible studies.
By expert, we mean individuals that have published extensively on community flood risk
management and whose works are well cited. These experts are from different disciplines
such as city and regional planning, sociology, urban and regional sciences, and economics.
“Community Rating System
and “FEMA”
Results yielded by Google Scholar
(N=890), Science Direct (N=29),
Web of Science (N=6), Google
Scholar Alerts (N=35)
“Community Flood Risk
Management
Results yielded by Google Scholar
(N=18), Science Direct (N=1), Web
of Science (N=0), Google Scholar
Alerts (N=1)
“Community Flood Policy”
Results yielded by Google Scholar
(N=1), Science Direct (N=0), Web
of Science (N=0)
“Community Flood Risk”
Results yielded by Google Scholar
(N=113), Science Direct (N=4),
Web of Science (N=3), Google
Scholar Alerts (N=8)
“Community Flood Management”
Results yielded by Google Scholar
(N=59), Science Direct (N=2), Web
of Science (N=1), Google Scholar
Alerts (N=1)
63 Repeated results
855 Excluded results
5 Repeated results
15 Excluded results
0 Repeated results
1 Excluded result
31 Repeated results
97: Excluded results
19 Repeated results
44 Excluded results
42 Results included
0 Results included
0 Results included
2 Results included
0 Results included
Stage 1: 44 Results
included from
literary searches
Fig. 1 Diagram of studies selected for inclusion from stage 1

Citations
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
12 Feb 2020
Abstract: Floods can be devastating to communities and result in fatalities and injuries, negatively impacting the economy, and quality of life. This paper presents a review of community resilience research ...

20 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The importance of including urban growth in accurate future flood risk assessment is highlighted and how planning for future urbanization should include measurement science‐based strategies in developing policies to achieve more resilient communities is highlighted.
Abstract: Flood risk to urban communities is increasing significantly as a result of the integrated effects of climate change and socioeconomic development. The latter effect is one of the main drivers of rising flood risk has received less attention in comparison to climate change. Economic development and population growth are major causes of urban expansion in flood-prone areas, and a comprehensive understanding of the impact of urban growth on flood risk is an essential ingredient of effective flood risk management. At the same time, planning for community resilience has become a national and worldwide imperative in recent years. Enhancements to community resilience require well-integrated and enormous long-term public and private investments. Accordingly, comprehensive urban growth plans should take rising flood risk into account to ensure future resilient communities through careful collaboration between engineers, geologists, socialists, economists, and urban planners within the framework of life-cycle analysis. This paper highlights the importance of including urban growth in accurate future flood risk assessment and how planning for future urbanization should include measurement science-based strategies in developing policies to achieve more resilient communities.

19 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2020
TL;DR: The findings showed that there is a huge untapped potential for innovative solutions in the field of prevention, preparedness, civil protection, communication, cooperation, etc.
Abstract: Starting from the importance of innovative solutions for improving the needs of different practitioners as flood risk managers, the purpose of this review was to describe and analyze, evaluates, and prioritizes the various available different innovative solutions that have sufficient potential to be useful and used by practitioners. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the DAREnet knowledge base (an integral feature of the DAREnet online community platform) which identified critical challenges for flood management and the relevant field or source of innovation, as well as the current scientific literature in the field of disaster studies. A fourth stage selection procedure identified candidate original or review papers and evaluated the degree to which papers met predetermined requirements for inclusion extracted from prior systematic reviews. Included in the study were over 100 studies that met the requirements for predetermined inclusion. The findings of this review showed that there is a huge untapped potential for innovative solutions in the field of prevention, preparedness, civil protection, communication, cooperation, etc. The findings of this review contribute to a growing body of knowledge regarding innovative solutions for flood risk management useful for practitioners.

10 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study analyzes a first-of-its-kind disaster recovery program in Colorado that promotes resilience-building activities in disaster-affected communities by supporting the efforts of place-based watershed coalitions and argues that it provides an opportunity for drawing important lessons about how communities can navigate the recovery–resilience nexus via cross-boundary collaboration and creatively leveraging traditional disaster recovery funding sources.
Abstract: As the potential for and scope of some types of disasters increases, so too does the need to build greater disaster resilience across the globe. Communities ideally begin building resilience prior to experiencing a disaster in order to reduce negative impacts and ease recovery processes; however, numerous environmental and sociopolitical factors can impede such efforts until a disaster occurs. While the disaster recovery period offers opportunities for communities to build resilience as they replace infrastructure and restore services, a host of new issues arise during this time that can further complicate or delay resilience building. In this study, we highlight the opportunities and challenges inherent at the intersection of disaster recovery and resilience building, which we term the "recovery-resilience nexus." To study this nexus, we analyze a first-of-its-kind disaster recovery program in Colorado, United States, that promotes resilience-building activities in disaster-affected communities by supporting the efforts of place-based watershed coalitions. Although the program faced numerous and interrelated technical, political, and fiscal hurdles, we argue that it provides an opportunity for drawing important lessons about how communities can navigate the recovery-resilience nexus via cross-boundary collaboration and creatively leveraging traditional disaster recovery funding sources to achieve resilience goals.

9 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: Despite a notable increase in the literature on community resilience, the notion of ‘community’ remains underproblematised. This is evident within flood risk management (FRM) literature, in which t...

7 citations


References
More filters

01 Jan 2007
Abstract: This report is the first volume of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. It covers several topics including the extensive range of observations now available for the atmosphere and surface, changes in sea level, assesses the paleoclimatic perspective, climate change causes both natural and anthropogenic, and climate models for projections of global climate.

29,120 citations


01 Jan 2013
Abstract: Report summarizing climate change issues in 2013, with an emphasis on physical science. It includes a summary of issues to assist policymakers, a technical summary, and a list of frequently-asked questions.

7,857 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, M. Marquis, K. Averyt, M.M.B. Tignor, H. LeRoy Miller, Jr. and Z. Chen, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, 996 pp. (paperback), ISBN-978-1-57718-033-3 This...

5,088 citations


Book
01 Jan 2013
Abstract: Foreword Preface Summary for policy makers Technical summary 1. Introduction 2. Observations: atmosphere and surface 3. Observations: ocean 4. Observations: cryosphere 5. Information from paleoclimate archives 6. Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles 7. Clouds and aerosols 8. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing 9. Evaluation of climate models 10. Detection and attribution of climate change: from global to regional 11. Near-term climate change: projections and predictability 12. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility 13. Sea level change 14. Climate phenomena and their relevance for future regional climate change Annex I. Atlas of global and regional climate projections Annex II. Climate system scenario tables Annex III. Glossary Annex IV. Acronyms Annex V. Contributors Annex VI. Expert reviewers Index.

2,729 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Abstract: There is considerable research interest on the meaning and measurement of resilience from a variety of research perspectives including those from the hazards/disasters and global change communities. The identification of standards and metrics for measuring disaster resilience is one of the challenges faced by local, state, and federal agencies, especially in the United States. This paper provides a new framework, the disaster resilience of place (DROP) model, designed to improve comparative assessments of disaster resilience at the local or community level. A candidate set of variables for implementing the model are also presented as a first step towards its implementation.

2,614 citations


Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "A review of the community flood risk management literature in the usa: lessons for improving community resilience to floods" ?

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. 

To identify knowledge gaps, the authors reviewed the limitations from each study as well as the directions for future research and identified common themes. Consistent with the previous sections, the authors organize knowledge gaps and future research directions according to the six themes previously identified.