《何时撤退是最好的选择:大洪水之后的洪水保险和其他气候变化难题》

Robert R. M. Verchick, L. Johnson
{"title":"《何时撤退是最好的选择:大洪水之后的洪水保险和其他气候变化难题》","authors":"Robert R. M. Verchick, L. Johnson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2418089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commentators argue, with good reason, that flood risk polices are soft on retreat. We Americans are more interested in fortifying our castles or building them higher than in moving out of harm’s way. And that is despite warnings of rising seas and stronger storms associated with climate change. But the impulse to stay put may be eroding. In particular, the practices and policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are gradually encouraging retreat over other alternatives. As one example, FEMA’s current Mitigation Best Practice Database, the agency’s new National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), now contemplates retreat mechanisms. For a while, Congress, too, beat the drums of retreat. The Biggert-Waters Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12), promised to remove important insurance subsidies for flood-prone homes, forcing some residents to consider relocation as a cost-saving option. Two years later, in response to public backlash, Congress repealed the law’s strongest retreat-based incentives. Congress is expected to reform the insurance program once again by 2017.In this article, we consider retreat as a strategy of hazard-risk reduction, with reference to the developments in FEMA practice and legislation listed above. As the effects of climate increase the risks of floods and other extreme events, we also see FEMA’s evolving retreat strategies as an important part of the nation’s climate adaptation efforts. Unfortunately, initiatives like the new NDRF and Congress’s insurance reforms are developing piecemeal, with blind spots large enough to drive a tornado through. We believe that policy makers would do better to have a set of principles to guide them when considering and implementing strategies that are intended or will have the effect of encouraging retreat. In particular, we think that Congress could have avoided the embarrassing failure of BW-12 if lawmakers had more fully recognized the complex issues at stake in retreat-based policies. One aim of our analysis is to suggest what a successful reform of the NFIP might look like, setting the foundation for more detailed conversations about flood insurance as the 2017 deadline approaches.","PeriodicalId":308822,"journal":{"name":"Water Sustainability eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Retreat is the Best Option: Flood Insurance after Biggert-Waters and Other Climate Change Puzzles\",\"authors\":\"Robert R. M. Verchick, L. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2418089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Commentators argue, with good reason, that flood risk polices are soft on retreat. We Americans are more interested in fortifying our castles or building them higher than in moving out of harm’s way. And that is despite warnings of rising seas and stronger storms associated with climate change. But the impulse to stay put may be eroding. In particular, the practices and policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are gradually encouraging retreat over other alternatives. As one example, FEMA’s current Mitigation Best Practice Database, the agency’s new National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), now contemplates retreat mechanisms. For a while, Congress, too, beat the drums of retreat. The Biggert-Waters Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12), promised to remove important insurance subsidies for flood-prone homes, forcing some residents to consider relocation as a cost-saving option. Two years later, in response to public backlash, Congress repealed the law’s strongest retreat-based incentives. Congress is expected to reform the insurance program once again by 2017.In this article, we consider retreat as a strategy of hazard-risk reduction, with reference to the developments in FEMA practice and legislation listed above. As the effects of climate increase the risks of floods and other extreme events, we also see FEMA’s evolving retreat strategies as an important part of the nation’s climate adaptation efforts. Unfortunately, initiatives like the new NDRF and Congress’s insurance reforms are developing piecemeal, with blind spots large enough to drive a tornado through. We believe that policy makers would do better to have a set of principles to guide them when considering and implementing strategies that are intended or will have the effect of encouraging retreat. In particular, we think that Congress could have avoided the embarrassing failure of BW-12 if lawmakers had more fully recognized the complex issues at stake in retreat-based policies. One aim of our analysis is to suggest what a successful reform of the NFIP might look like, setting the foundation for more detailed conversations about flood insurance as the 2017 deadline approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":308822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Water Sustainability eJournal\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Water Sustainability eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2418089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Sustainability eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2418089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

评论人士有充分的理由认为,应对洪水风险的政策在后退方面是软弱的。我们美国人更感兴趣的是加固我们的城堡,或者把它们建得更高,而不是远离危险。尽管有与气候变化有关的海平面上升和更强风暴的警告。但按兵不动的冲动可能正在消退。特别是,联邦紧急事务管理局(FEMA)的做法和政策正逐渐鼓励人们放弃其他选择而选择撤退。例如,联邦应急管理局目前的减灾最佳实践数据库,即该机构新的国家灾难恢复框架(NDRF),正在考虑撤退机制。有一段时间,国会也敲起了撤退的鼓。2012年《大水域保险改革法案》(BW-12)承诺取消对易受洪水影响房屋的重要保险补贴,迫使一些居民考虑将搬迁作为一种节省成本的选择。两年后,为了应对公众的强烈反对,国会废除了该法案中最强烈的退休激励措施。预计国会将在2017年之前再次改革医疗保险计划。在本文中,参考上述FEMA实践和立法的发展,我们认为撤退是一种减少危害风险的战略。由于气候的影响增加了洪水和其他极端事件的风险,我们也将联邦应急管理局不断发展的撤退战略视为国家适应气候变化努力的重要组成部分。不幸的是,像新的NDRF和国会的保险改革这样的倡议正在零零碎碎地发展,盲点大到足以驱动龙卷风。我们认为,政策制定者在考虑和实施旨在或将产生鼓励撤退效果的战略时,最好有一套原则来指导他们。特别是,我们认为,如果议员们更充分地认识到基于撤退的政策所涉及的复杂问题,国会本可以避免BW-12令人尴尬的失败。我们分析的一个目的是提出国家洪水保险计划的成功改革可能会是什么样子,随着2017年最后期限的临近,为更详细地讨论洪水保险奠定基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When Retreat is the Best Option: Flood Insurance after Biggert-Waters and Other Climate Change Puzzles
Commentators argue, with good reason, that flood risk polices are soft on retreat. We Americans are more interested in fortifying our castles or building them higher than in moving out of harm’s way. And that is despite warnings of rising seas and stronger storms associated with climate change. But the impulse to stay put may be eroding. In particular, the practices and policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are gradually encouraging retreat over other alternatives. As one example, FEMA’s current Mitigation Best Practice Database, the agency’s new National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF), now contemplates retreat mechanisms. For a while, Congress, too, beat the drums of retreat. The Biggert-Waters Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12), promised to remove important insurance subsidies for flood-prone homes, forcing some residents to consider relocation as a cost-saving option. Two years later, in response to public backlash, Congress repealed the law’s strongest retreat-based incentives. Congress is expected to reform the insurance program once again by 2017.In this article, we consider retreat as a strategy of hazard-risk reduction, with reference to the developments in FEMA practice and legislation listed above. As the effects of climate increase the risks of floods and other extreme events, we also see FEMA’s evolving retreat strategies as an important part of the nation’s climate adaptation efforts. Unfortunately, initiatives like the new NDRF and Congress’s insurance reforms are developing piecemeal, with blind spots large enough to drive a tornado through. We believe that policy makers would do better to have a set of principles to guide them when considering and implementing strategies that are intended or will have the effect of encouraging retreat. In particular, we think that Congress could have avoided the embarrassing failure of BW-12 if lawmakers had more fully recognized the complex issues at stake in retreat-based policies. One aim of our analysis is to suggest what a successful reform of the NFIP might look like, setting the foundation for more detailed conversations about flood insurance as the 2017 deadline approaches.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信