Climatic Change

, Volume 152, Issue 2, pp 227–237 | Cite as

Drawing lines: FEMA and the politics of mapping flood zones

  • Sarah PralleEmail author


Flooding is the most common and damaging of all natural disasters in USA, and climate change is exacerbating the problem. Accurate flood maps are critical to communicating flood risk to vulnerable populations, to mitigating and adapting to floods, and to the functioning of the federal flood insurance program. Yet, we know little about how the mapping process works in practice. This article argues that politics can shape the remapping process in ways that leave communities vulnerable. Because mapping takes place within the context of the National Flood Insurance Program, the conversation at the local level often centers on the costs of revising the flood hazard zones rather than the risks associated with flooding. This can lead to less than optimal responses by individuals and communities, and suggests that the USA is not adequately preparing for future climate change impacts.


  1. Adams-Schroen S, Thomas E (2015) A three-legged stool on two legs: recent Federal law Related to local climate resilience planning and zoning. Urban Lawyer 47:525–542Google Scholar
  2. Association of State Floodplain Managers (2013) Flood mapping for the nation: a cost analysis for the nation’s flood map inventory, 1 MarchGoogle Scholar
  3. Checker M (2017) Stop FEMA now: social media, activism, and the sacrificed citizen. Geoforum 79:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dedman B (2014) Why taxpayers will bail out the rich when the next storm hits Us. Available at
  5. Dennis B (2017) The country’s flood insurance program is sinking. Rescuing it won’t be easy. The Washington Post, July 16Google Scholar
  6. Faricy C (2016) Welfare for the wealthy: parties, spending, and inequality in the United States. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002) National flood insurance program: program description, 2 AugustGoogle Scholar
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2017) Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP). Available at
  9. Fischer H (1972) 1,000 flee high waters. The Post Standard 145, 4 JulyGoogle Scholar
  10. Healy A, Molhorta N (2009) Myopic voting and natural disaster policy. Am Polit Sci Rev 103:387–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holladay S, Schwartz JA (2010) Flooding the market: the distributional consequences of the NFIP. Institute for Policy Integrity, Policy Brief No. 7Google Scholar
  12. Hunn D, Dempsey M, Zaveri M (2018) Harvey's floods: Most homes damaged by Harvey were outside flood plain, data show. Houston Chronicle, March 30. Available at Accessed 4 Sept 2018
  13. Javeline D (2014) The most important topic political scientists are not studying: adapting to climate change. Perspect Polit 12:420–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kailath R (2016) New maps label much of New Orleans out of high risk flood area. NPR: All Things Considered, 30 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  15. Knowles SG, Kunreuther HC (2014) Troubled waters: the National Flood Insurance Program in historical perspective. J Policy Hist 26:327–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leitsinger M (2014) For average Joes, fighting FEMA flood maps isn't easy or cheap. Available at Accessed 4 Sept 2018
  17. Logue K, Ben-Shahar O (2015) The perverse effects of subsidized weather insurance. Kreisman Working Papers Series in Housing Law and Policy No. 23Google Scholar
  18. Martin A (2017) FEMA Region 2 Risk Analysis Branch Chief. Personal interview with author. February 14 2017Google Scholar
  19. Melillo JM, Richmond TS, Yohe GW eds (2014) Highlights of climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research ProgramGoogle Scholar
  20. Mettler S (2011) The submerged state: how invisible government policies undermine American democracy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer T (2013) New FEMA flood maps needed, but funding is slashed. Scientific American 27 MayGoogle Scholar
  22. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2016) U.S. Resilience Toolkit: Inland Flooding. 6 JulyGoogle Scholar
  23. Shao W, Xian S, Lin N, Kunreuther H, Jackson N, Goidel K (2017) Understanding the effects of past flood events and perceived and estimated flood risks on individuals’ voluntary flood insurance purchase behavior. Water Res 108:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stevens M, Hanschka S (2014) Municipal flood hazard mapping: the case of British Columbia, Canada. Nat Hazards 73:907–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strother L (2018) The National Flood Insurance Program: a case study in policy failure, reform, and retrenchment. Policy Stud J.
  26. Technical Map Advisory Council (2016) TMAC annual report. DecemberGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas A, Liechenko R (2011) Adaptation through insurance: lessons from the NFIP. Int J Clim Change Strategies Manage 3:250–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winter JM, Beckage B, Bucini G, Horton RM, Clemins PJ (2016) Development and evaluation of high-resolution climate simulations over the mountainous northeastern United States. J Hydrometeorol.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations