4.6 Review

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

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS
卷 96, 期 3, 页码 1223-1248

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-019-03606-3

关键词

Flood risk; Community flood risk management; Community resilience

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation (NSF) [1635381]
  2. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  3. Directorate For Engineering [1635381] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据