4.8 Article

Large and inequitable flood risks in Los Angeles, California

Journal

NATURE SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 47-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41893-022-00977-7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flood risks in the United States have historically been underestimated, particularly with respect to human well-being and within low-wealth and marginalized communities. In Los Angeles, flood risks are disproportionately high for historically disadvantaged populations and communities already facing social inequities.
Flood risks in the United States have historically been underestimated, particularly with respect to human well-being and within low-wealth and marginalized communities. Here, we characterize a fuller range of risks in Los Angeles, California, using a quantitative framework that intersects flood hazards from rainfall, streamflow and storm tides with measures of exposure and vulnerability including ethnicity, race and socioeconomic disadvantage. We find that between 197,000 and 874,000 people (median 425,000) and between US$36 billion and US$108 billion in property (median US$56 billion) are exposed to flooding greater than 30 cm within the 100-year flood zone, risk levels far above federally defined floodplains and similar to the most damaging hurricanes in US history. These risks are disproportionately higher for non-Hispanic Black and disadvantaged populations, burdening communities that may have greater challenges recovering and reinforcing socioeconomic inequities. Our framework creates opportunities for transparently and equitably reducing flood risks in urban areas. The risks to human well-being of floods in the United States have long been overlooked and underestimated, particularly for low-income and marginalized communities. In Los Angeles, flood risks are disproportionately high for historically disadvantaged populations and communities already facing social inequities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available