You Might Falsely Believe Your Home Is Safe From Flooding Due To The Way The Risks Are Classified
Recent research suggests traditional ways of conveying flood risk might unintentionally foster a false sense of safety among both developers and home buyers, encouraging more development in flood-prone areas.
A new study conducted by researchers at North Carolina State University explored this effect, known as the “safe development paradox.”
The study’s lead author, Georgina Sanchez, stated the issue may stem from the way the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) categorizes regions based on severe flooding likelihood.
Flood mapping is a system that classifies areas based on their annual flood risks. These labels guide regulations, like whether developers or homeowners are required to buy flood insurance.
If a location has a 1% chance of flooding in a given year, for instance, it’s determined to be a 100-year floodplain.
This classification is considered a high-risk zone. According to Sanchez, though, labeling the 100-year floodplain as high-risk can inadvertently create the false impression that areas outside of it are completely safe.
She detailed how the current approach creates a seemingly clear boundary. More specifically, if you’re inside the 100-year floodplain, you’re seen as at risk; meanwhile, if you’re outside it, the assumption is you’re at minimal risk.
This oversimplifies the reality, misrepresenting the true nature of flood hazards and pushing development just outside high-risk flood zones.
“If you are on the ‘safe’ side, then you are not required to purchase flood insurance or meet strict structural requirements. It then becomes more affordable to live just outside the floodplain, where the perceived risk is lower, yet you are still close to the beautiful lakes, rivers, and coastlines we love,” Sanchez explained.
Sign up for Chip Chick’s newsletter and get stories like this delivered to your inbox.
Past studies on the “safe development paradox” have zeroed in on the “levee effect,” where building flood-control structures creates a false sense of security.
This encourages more development in these areas, which can result in significant losses if a flood exceeds the capacity of the protective structures.
Now, the researchers have identified another instance of the paradox by examining regulatory floodplain mapping instead of flood control structures.
Their findings show that efforts to mitigate flood risk can unintentionally increase it by fueling development just beyond the boundaries of areas deemed high-risk.
The team analyzed floodplain maps from more than 2,300 counties alongside past development data and simulations of future growth. This helped them identify clear signs of the safe development paradox at both national and local levels.
Their results showed that nearly a quarter, or 24%, of all development across the country actually occurs within 250 meters of a 100-year floodplain.
Without changes in policy to address flood risk, this percentage is projected to keep rising through at least 2060.
It’s important to note that the study was completed in 2019. Nonetheless, Sanchez claimed that its results are especially evident in western North Carolina, where Hurricane Helene caused recent damage.
“Because of the steep topography in places like western North Carolina, there is an even greater concentration of development compared to flatter areas. Developers tend to seek land that is flat enough to build on, which often happens to be along stream networks and closer to flood-prone areas,” Sanchez concluded.
“When I saw the news after Helene and looked at the images from the region, I could painfully see the findings of our study reflected in those scenes.”
To read the study’s complete findings, which have since been published in PLOS ONE, visit the link here.
More About:News