Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Developing more useful equity measurements for flood-risk management

Nature Sustainability (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Decision-makers increasingly invoke equity to motivate, design, implement and evaluate strategies for managing flood risks. Unfortunately, there is little guidance on how analysts can develop measurements that support these tasks. Here we analyse how equity can be defined and measured by surveying 167 peer-reviewed publications that explicitly state an interest in equity in the context of flood-risk management. Our main result is a taxonomy that systematizes how equity has been, and can be, defined and measured in flood-risk research. The taxonomy embodies how equity is a pluralistic and unavoidably ethical concept. Despite this, we find that most quantitative studies fail to motivate or defend critical value judgements on which their findings depend. We also find that studies often include only a single equity measurement. This practice can overlook important trade-offs between competing perspectives on equity. For example, the few studies that employ distinct principles show that conclusions about equity depend on which principle underlies a specific measurement and how that principle is operationalized. We draw on our analysis to suggest practices for developing more useful equity indicators and performing more comprehensive quantitative equity assessments in the broader context of environmental risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Taxonomy of equity indicators.
Fig. 2: Mapping of all 22 analysed indicators to the taxonomy.
Fig. 3: Mapping of all 66 stated equity measurements and 22 indicators to the taxonomy.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data and materials used in the analysis are freely and permanently available via Zenodo115. This analysis was tested and confirmed for reproducibility by S. Baboolal on 11 July 2023. If you have any issues reproducing the results, please contact the corresponding author on the GitHub repository.

Code availability

All code used in the analysis are freely and permanently available via Zenodo115. This analysis was tested and confirmed for reproducibility by S. Baboolal on 11 July 2023. If you have any issues reproducing the results, please contact the corresponding author on the GitHub repository.

References

  1. Čapek, S. M. The ‘Environmental Justice’ frame: a conceptual discussion and an application. Soc. Probl. 40, 5–24 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bullard, R. The legacy of American apartheid and environmental racism. J. Civil Rights Econ. Dev. 9, 445–474 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cutter, S. L. Race, class and environmental justice. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 19, 111–122 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bullard, R. D. Dismantling environmental racism in the USA. Local Environ. 4, 5–19 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brulle, R. J. & Pellow, D. N. Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu. Rev. Public Health 27, 103–124 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schlosberg, D. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).

  7. Mohai, P., Pellow, D. & Roberts, J. T. Environmental justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 405–430 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Walker, C. & Burningham, K. Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental justice: evidence and evaluation of inequality in a UK context. Crit. Soc. Policy 31, 216–240 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schlosberg, D. Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Env. Polit. 22, 37–55 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Banzhaf, S., Ma, L. & Timmins, C. Environmental justice: the economics of race, place, and pollution. J. Econ. Perspect. 33, 185–208 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McDermott, M., Mahanty, S. & Schreckenberg, K. Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 33, 416–427 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liao, K.-H., Chan, J. K. H. & Huang, Y.-L. Environmental justice and flood prevention: the moral cost of floodwater redistribution. Landsc. Urban Plan. 189, 36–45 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shi, L. et al. Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 131–137 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Siders, A. R. Social justice implications of US managed retreat buyout programs. Clim. Change 152, 239–257 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson, C., Penning-Rowsell, E. & Parker, D. Natural and imposed injustices: the challenges in implementing ‘fair’ flood risk management policy in England. Geogr. J. 173, 374–390 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaminsky, T. An Act to Amend the Environmental Conservation Law, the Public Service Law, the Public Authorities Law, the Labor Law and the Community Risk and Resiliency Act, in Relation to Establishing the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act Bill Number: S6599 (The New York State Senate, 2019).

  17. Climate and Equitable Jobs Act Bill SB2408 (Illinois General Assembly, 2021).

  18. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Communities, Climate Change, and Health Equity—State-Level Implementation: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief (The National Academies Press, 2022).

  19. Executive Office of the President. Advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the Federal Government. Fed. Regist. 86, 7009–7013 (2021).

  20. Executive Office of the President. Tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad. Fed. Regist. 86, 7619–7633 (2021).

  21. Diezmartínez, C. V. & Short Gianotti, A. G. US cities increasingly integrate justice into climate planning and create policy tools for climate justice. Nat. Commun. 13, 5763 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Executive Order 45. One NYC Equity Review (The City of New York Office of the Mayor, 2019).

  23. City Agencies’ Strategies for Equity (2022) (Equity NYC, 2022).

  24. Executive Order No. 1-20 (City of Philadelphia Office of the Mayor, 2020).

  25. Racial Equity Action Plans (City of Philadelphia, 2022).

  26. Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative (M-21-28) (Executive Office of the President, 2021).

  27. FEMA Equity Action Plan (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2022).

  28. Executive Order 13985 Equity Action Plan (EPA, 2022).

  29. HUD Equity Action Plan (Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2022).

  30. Study to Identify Methods to Assess Equity: Report to the President (Office of Management and Budget, 2021).

  31. Coggins, S. et al. Empirical assessment of equity and justice in climate adaptation literature: a systematic map. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 073003 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Seigerman, C. K. et al. Operationalizing equity for integrated water resources management. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 59, 281–298 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jafino, B. A., Kwakkel, J. H. & Taebi, B. Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: a review of recent advances and a research agenda. WIREs Clim. Change 12, e721 (2021).

  34. Jafino, B. A., Kwakkel, J. H. & Klijn, F. Evaluating the distributional fairness of alternative adaptation policies: a case study in Vietnam’s upper Mekong Delta. Clim. Change 173, 17 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kraan, C. M., Hino, M., Niemann, J., Siders, A. R. & Mach, K. J. Promoting equity in retreat through voluntary property buyout programs. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 11, 481–492 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sovacool, B. K., Newell, P., Carley, S. & Fanzo, J. Equity, technological innovation and sustainable behaviour in a low-carbon future. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 326–337 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hino, M. & Nance, E. Five ways to ensure flood-risk research helps the most vulnerable. Nature 595, 27–29 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Fletcher, S et al. Equity in water resources planning: a path forward for decision support modelers. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. 148, 02522005 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rudge, K. Leveraging critical race theory to produce equitable climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 623–631 (2023).

  40. Markanday, A., Galarraga, I. & Markandya, A. A critical review of cost-benefit analysis for climate change adaptation in cities. Clim. Change Econ. 10, 1950014 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Eakin, H., Parajuli, J., Yogya, Y., Hernández, B. & Manheim, M. Entry points for addressing justice and politics in urban flood adaptation decision making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 51, 1–6 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Alexander, M., Doorn, N. & Priest, S. Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 397–408 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Elliott, K. C. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017).

  44. Cash, D. W. & Belloy, P. G. Salience, credibility and legitimacy in a rapidly shifting world of knowledge and action. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 12, 7376 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cash, D. W. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bistline, J., Budolfson, M. & Francis, B. Deepening transparency about value-laden assumptions in energy and environmental modelling: improving best practices for both modellers and non-modellers. Clim. Policy 21, 1–15 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Smith, A. B. U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, 1980 - present (NCEI accession 0209268). NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information https://doi.org/10.25921/STKW-7W73 (2020).

  48. Historical Flood Risk and Costs (FEMA, 2022).

  49. Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities FY 2021 Subapplication and Selection Status (FEMA, 2022).

  50. Flood Mitigation Assistance Fiscal Year 2021 Subapplication Status (FEMA, 2022).

  51. Gotham, K. F. Reinforcing inequalities: the impact of the CDBG Program on post-Katrina rebuilding. Hous. Policy Debate 24, 192–212 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vilá, O., Smith, G., Cutts, B., Gyawali, S. & Bhattarai, S. Equity in FEMA hazard mitigation assistance programs: the role of state hazard mitigation officers. Environ. Sci. Policy 136, 632–641 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Albert, C. et al. Planning nature-based solutions: principles, steps, and insights. Ambio 50, 1446–1461 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rudge, K. Participatory climate adaptation planning in New York City: analyzing the role of community-based organizations. Urban Clim. 40, 101018 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shi, L. et al. Equitable buyouts? Learning from state, county, and local floodplain management programs. Clim. Change 174, 29 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Fussell, E. The long term recovery of New Orleans’ population after Hurricane Katrina. Am. Behav. Sci. 59, 1231–1245 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Matthews, V. et al. Differential mental health impact six months after extensive river flooding in rural Australia: a cross-sectional analysis through an equity lens. Front. Public Health 7, 367 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Jonkman, S. N., Maaskant, B., Boyd, E. & Levitan, M. L. Loss of life caused by the flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: analysis of the relationship between flood characteristics and mortality. Risk Anal. 29, 676–698 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bessette, D. L. et al. Building a values-informed mental model for New Orleans climate risk management. Risk Anal. 37, 1993–2004 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kind, J., Wouter Botzen, W. J. & Aerts, J. C. J. H. Accounting for risk aversion, income distribution and social welfare in cost‐benefit analysis for flood risk management. WIREs Clim. Change 8, e446 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Thaler, T. & Hartmann, T. Justice and flood risk management: reflecting on different approaches to distribute and allocate flood risk management in Europe. Nat. Hazards 83, 129–147 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Dundon, L. A. & Camp, J. S. Climate justice and home-buyout programs: renters as a forgotten population in managed retreat actions. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 11, 420–433 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Objective 1.3 - Achieve Equitable Outcomes for Those We Serve (FEMA, 2021).

  64. Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4, 155–169 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lamont, J. & Favor, C. Distributive justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E. N.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/justice-distributive/ (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2017).

  66. Environmental Indicators: Better Coordination is Needed to Develop Environmental Indicator Sets that Inform Decisions GAO-05-52 (US Government Accountability Office, 2004).

  67. Key Indicator Systems: Experiences of Other National and Subnational Systems Offer Insights for the United States GAO-11-396 (US Government Accountability Office, 2011).

  68. Main Economic Indicators (OECD, 2023).

  69. Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess the USA’s Position and Progress GAO-05-1 (US Government Accountability Office, 2004).

  70. Alonso, W. & Starr, P. The Politics of Numbers (Russell Sage Foundation, 1987).

  71. WDI - Economy (The World Bank, 2018).

  72. Know Your Risk for Heart Disease (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2023).

  73. Ciullo, A., Kwakkel, J. H., De Bruijn, K. M., Doorn, N. & Klijn, F. Efficient or fair? Operationalizing ethical principles in flood risk management: a case study on the Dutch–German Rhine. Risk Anal. 40, 1844–1862 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Dennig, F. Climate change and the re-evaluation of cost-benefit analysis. Clim. Change 151, 43–54 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Elliott, J. R., Loughran, K. & Brown, P. L. Divergent residential pathways from flood-prone areas: how neighborhood inequalities are shaping urban climate adaptation. Soc. Probl. 70, 869–892 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Tate, E., Strong, A., Kraus, T. & Xiong, H. Flood recovery and property acquisition in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Nat. Hazards 80, 2055–2079 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Fletcher, C. S., Rambaldi, A. N., Lipkin, F. & McAllister, R. R. J. Economic, equitable, and affordable adaptations to protect coastal settlements against storm surge inundation. Reg. Environ. Change. 16, 1023–1034 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Apgar, J. M. et al. Identifying opportunities to improve governance of aquatic agricultural systems through participatory action research. Ecol. Soc. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270053 (2017).

  79. Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R. & Thieken, A. Review article “Assessment of economic flood damage”. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 1697–1724 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Pollack, A. B., Sue Wing, I. & Nolte, C. Aggregation bias and its drivers in large scale flood loss estimation: a Massachusetts case study. J. Flood Risk Manage. 15, e12851 (2022).

  81. de Moel, H., Bouwer, L. M. & Aerts, J. C. J. H. Uncertainty and sensitivity of flood risk calculations for a dike ring in the south of the Netherlands. Sci. Total Environ. 473–474, 224–234 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Aerts, J. C. J. H. et al. Climate adaptation. Evaluating flood resilience strategies for coastal megacities. Science 344, 473–475 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Kron, W. Flood risk = hazard • values • vulnerability. Water Int. 30, 58–68 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Keller, K., Helgeson, C. & Srikrishnan, V. Climate risk management. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 49, 95–116 (2021).

  85. BCA Reference Guide (FEMA, 2009).

  86. Mobini, S., Becker, P., Larsson, R. & Berndtsson, R. Systemic inequity in urban flood exposure and damage compensation. Water 12, 3152 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Turnham, J. et al. Housing Recovery on the Gulf Coast, Phase II: Results of Property Owner Survey in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (HUD User, 2011).

  88. Simpson, N. P. et al. A framework for complex climate change risk assessment. One Earth 4, 489–501 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Tate, E., Rahman, M. A., Emrich, C. T. & Sampson, C. C. Flood exposure and social vulnerability in the United States. Nat. Hazards 106, 435–457 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Emrich, C. T., Tate, E., Larson, S. E. & Zhou, Y. Measuring social equity in flood recovery funding. Environ. Hazards 19, 228–250 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Pallathadka, A., Sauer, J., Chang, H. & Grimm, N. B. Urban flood risk and green infrastructure: who is exposed to risk and who benefits from investment? A case study of three U.S. cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 223, 104417 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zoll, D. Climate adaptation as a racial project: an analysis of color-blind flood resilience efforts in Austin, Texas. Environ. Justice 14, 288–297 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Linscott, G., Rishworth, A., King, B. & Hiestand, M. P. Uneven experiences of urban flooding: examining the 2010 Nashville flood. Nat. Hazards 110, 629–653 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Bosisio, A. & Moreno-Jiménez, A. Spatially disaggregated assessment of environmental inequalities among vulnerable groups due to urban rainstorm flooding. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 15, 1263–1285 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Debbage, N. Multiscalar spatial analysis of urban flood risk and environmental justice in the Charlanta megaregion, USA. Anthropocene 28, 100226 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Montgomery, M. C. & Chakraborty, J. Assessing the environmental justice consequences of flood risk: a case study in Miami, Florida. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 095010 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Gourevitch, J. D. et al. Spatial targeting of floodplain restoration to equitably mitigate flood risk. Glob. Environ. Change 61, 102050 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Frontuto, V., Dalmazzone, S., Salcuni, F. & Pezzoli, A. Risk aversion, inequality and economic evaluation of flood damages: a case study in Ecuador. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 12, 10068 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kind, J., Wouter Botzen, W. J. & Aerts, J. C. J. Social vulnerability in cost-benefit analysis for flood risk management. Environ. Dev. Econ. 25, 115–134 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Halsnæs, K., Kaspersen, P. S. & Drews, M. Key drivers and economic consequences of high‑end climate scenarios: uncertainties and risks. Clim. Res. 64, 85–98 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Markanday, A., Markandya, A., de Murieta, E. S. & Galarraga, I. Accounting for the effects of employment, equity, and risk aversion in cost–benefit analysis: an application to an adaptation project. J. Benefit Cost Anal. 12, 313–334 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Palagi, E., Coronese, M., Lamperti, F. & Roventini, A. Climate change and the nonlinear impact of precipitation anomalies on income inequality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2203595119 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., Saez, E. & Turner, N. Is the United States still a land of opportunity? Recent trends in intergenerational mobility. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 141–147 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Bakkensen, L. A. & Barrage, L. Going underwater? Flood risk belief heterogeneity and coastal home price dynamics. Rev. Financ. Stud. 35, 3666–3709 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Principles of Environmental Justice (United Church of Christ, 2017).

  106. Noonan, D. S. & Sadiq, A.-A. A. Flood risk management: exploring the impacts of the community rating system program on poverty and income inequality. Risk Anal. 38, 489–503 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Huang, X. & Wang, C. Estimates of exposure to the 100-year floods in the conterminous United States using national building footprints. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50, 101731 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Messager, M. L., Ettinger, A. K., Murphy-Williams, M. & Levin, P. S. Fine-scale assessment of inequities in inland flood vulnerability. Appl. Geogr. 133, 102492 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Bakkensen, L. A., Fox-Lent, C., Read, L. K. & Linkov, I. Validating resilience and vulnerability indices in the context of natural disasters. Risk Anal. 37, 982–1004 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Spielman, S. E. et al. Evaluating social vulnerability indicators: criteria and their application to the Social Vulnerability Index. Nat. Hazards 100, 417–436 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Kuhlicke, C. et al. Spinning in circles? A systematic review on the role of theory in social vulnerability, resilience and adaptation research. Glob. Environ. Change 80, 102672 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Helgeson, C., Nicholas, R. E., Keller, K., Forest, C. E. & Tuana, N. Attention to values helps shape convergence research. Clim. Change 170, 17 (2022).

  113. Goal 1 - Instill Equity as a Foundation of Emergency Management (FEMA, 2021).

  114. Anderson, E. S. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109, 287–337 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Pollack, A. abpoll/equity_meas: V1.1.0. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8139215 (2023).

  116. The Pandas Development Team. pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v1.5.2). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7344967 (2022).

  117. Collaborative Data Science (Plotly Technologies, 2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Spiegelman for an annotated bibliography of several key references; C. Bacon, M. Budolfson, C. Cooper, J. Doss-Gollin, A. Giang, B. Kopp, J. Kwakkel, C. Little, R. Nicholas, C. Nolte, Y. Romitti, V. Srikrishnan and N. Tuana for reading an earlier version of the manuscript and offering helpful feedback; A. Alipour, S. Baboolal, P. Hegde, X. Huang, M. May, S. Roth, S. Sreenivasan, N. Tebyanian and H. Ye for conversations and support. We also thank S. Baboolal for confirming code reproducibility and S. Wishbone for invaluable inputs. All authors acknowledge funding from the Megalopolitan Coastal Transformation Hub (MACH) under NSF award ICER-2103754. A.B.P. and K.K. acknowledge funding from Dartmouth College.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    Adam B. Pollack & Klaus Keller

  2. Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Penn State University, State College, PA, USA

    Casey Helgeson

  3. Department of Philosophy, Penn State University, State College, PA, USA

    Casey Helgeson

  4. Environmental Defense Fund, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Carolyn Kousky

Authors
  1. Adam B. Pollack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Casey Helgeson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolyn Kousky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Klaus Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.B.P., C.H., C.K. and K.K. conceptualized the project, developed the methodology, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. A.B.P. conducted investigations, performed formal analysis and administered the project. A.B.P. and C.H. performed visualization. C.K. and K.K. acquired funding and supervised the project. A.B.P. wrote the original draft of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam B. Pollack.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Danny Otto and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Text and Table 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pollack, A.B., Helgeson, C., Kousky, C. et al. Developing more useful equity measurements for flood-risk management. Nat Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01345-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01345-3

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing