Public Attitudes Toward Policy Instruments for Flood Risk Management

Jonathan Raikes; Daniel Henstra; Jason Thistlethwaite

doi:10.1007/s00267-023-01848-3

Back

Public Attitudes Toward Policy Instruments for Flood Risk Management

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Public Attitudes Toward Policy Instruments for Flood Risk Management

Jonathan Raikes, Daniel Henstra and Jason Thistlethwaite

Environmental Management, Vol.72, pp.1050-1060

2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01848-3

Appears in UniSC Supported Open Access Outputs

Files and links (2)

pdf

Public Attitudes Toward Policy Instruments for Flood Risk Management559.61 kBDownload View

Published VersionCC BY V4.0, Open Access

url

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01848-3View

Published Version

Abstract

Public opinion

Flood risk management

Social acceptability

Policy instruments

Effective flood risk management (FRM) requires a mix of policy instruments that reduces, shares, and manages flood risk. The social acceptability of these policy instruments—the degree of public support or opposition to their use—is an important consideration when designing an optimal mix to achieve FRM objectives. This paper examines public attitudes toward FRM policy instruments based on a national survey of Canadians living in high-risk areas. Respondents were asked their views on flood maps, disaster assistance, flood insurance, flood risk disclosure and liability, and property buyouts. The results indicate that all five policy instruments have high social acceptability, but they must be calibrated to ensure access to flood risk information and achieve a fair distribution of FRM costs among key stakeholders.

Details

Title: Public Attitudes Toward Policy Instruments for Flood Risk Management
Authors: Jonathan Raikes (Corresponding Author) - University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Sustainability Research Cluster
Daniel Henstra (Author) - University of Waterloo
Jason Thistlethwaite (Author) - University of Waterloo
Publication details: Environmental Management, Vol.72, pp.1050-1060
Publisher: Springer New York LLC
Date published: 2023
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-023-01848-3
ISSN: 1432-1009; 0364-152X
Copyright note: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Organisation Unit: University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland; School of Law and Society; Sustainability Research Cluster
Language: English
Record Identifier: 99738097802621
Output Type: Journal article