Open AccessAddressing social and institutional vulnerabilities in the context of flood risk mitigation
Author(s) -
Alves Priscila B. R.,
Djordjević Slobodan,
Javadi Akbar A.
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of flood risk management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.049
H-Index - 36
ISSN - 1753-318X
DOI - 10.1111/jfr3.12839
Subject(s) - flood myth , vulnerability (computing) , environmental planning , context (archaeology) , coping (psychology) , harm , natural hazard , resilience (materials science) , risk management , business , environmental resource management , focus group , political science , risk analysis (engineering) , geography , computer security , psychology , computer science , economics , physics , archaeology , finance , marketing , psychiatry , meteorology , law , thermodynamics
There are different perspectives of what constitutes disaster risk. Among the “hazards”‐tradition research, more focus is given to modelling hazards, and less effort is made to understand the vulnerabilities . Considering vulnerabilities as the inherent characteristics of the place that create the potential to harm, this paper highlights the importance of understanding the vulnerabilities of the place before defining actions for flood risk mitigation (FRM). In this sense, a participatory approach, the Project PLANEJEEE, was developed to understand the social and institutional vulnerabilities of FRM in Campina Grande, Brazil. Data was collected with the collaboration with 199 stakeholders through surveys, workshop and focus groups. The results reflect the analysis of risk perception and coping capacity of communities at risk ( n = 172), and the institutional context with the involvement with policymakers and local specialists ( n = 27). Although results confirm that individuals faced severe flood risk cases previously, they still need resources for increasing their coping capacity and their own risk protection. Institutional vulnerabilities are shown with the contrast between challenges and actions for FRM. Findings show that multiple challenges in social and institutional contexts should be systematically addressed to propose actions to reduce flood risk vulnerability, and increase resilience.