Abstract
Hydrological hazards pose significant threats worldwide, resulting in extensive societal and environmental impacts. To mitigate these impacts, structural protection measures like levees are commonly implemented. However, these measures can overlook complex human-water interactions and cause unintended consequences, such as the safe development paradox (SDP) and its sub-phenomena, the levee effect (LE), where risk reduction efforts paradoxically increase risk in the long run due to a false sense of safety. Despite the growing body of research on the SDP and LE, existing evidence remains fragmented due to the diverse methodologies and variables considered. To address this gap, we systematically reviewed 94 studies spanning 2001–2023 to synthesize the methodological approaches, variables, and evidence in this field. Most of the reviewed studies (75%) provided conclusive evidence to support the occurrence of the SDP and LE via three key mechanisms: (a) increased development in protected areas, (b) reduced preparedness and false sense of safety, and (c) increased damage from rare disaster events. About 40% of the reviewed case studies focused solely on exposure, overlooking other critical dimensions of the SDP and LE, such as vulnerability and behavioral aspects linked to a false sense of safety. Furthermore, the effect of non-structural and individual adaptation measures on the SDP and LE remains underinvestigated. A more holistic assessment of these socio-hydrological phenomena should thus include aspects such as preparedness, vulnerability, and risk perception. This holistic approach would enable a better understanding of the diversity of scenarios where the SDP and LE can manifest, providing policymakers with essential information to prevent unintended consequences of adaptation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Hydrological hazards, such as floods and landslides, pose a significant threat worldwide, inflicting extensive damage. In 2022 alone, these disasters caused over 7000 fatalities and economic losses exceeding US$44 billion (CRED 2023). With climate and land use change, the magnitude and frequency of such events are likely to intensify (IPCC 2022; McDermott 2022), amplifying risk management challenges.
Traditionally, the mitigation of hydrological disaster risk has followed a technocratic approach, relying on structural interventions (Opperman et al. 1979; Blöschl et al. 2013; Roos et al. 2017). However, this approach often neglects societal aspects and feedback between human and water systems, which can lead to unintended outcomes (Sivapalan et al. 2012; Di Baldassarre et al. 2019). For instance, issuing temporary water abstraction licenses during droughts may exacerbate underlying water scarcity. In fact, revoking these licenses often proves difficult due to dependence on the new water source, ultimately reducing long-term water availability (Di Baldassarre et al. 2018b). Similarly, constructing levees and dams can encourage the occupation of flood-prone areas and increase the number of people and assets exposed to residual risk (White 1945; Tobin 1995; Di Baldassarre et al. 2013). Non-structural measures, such as land use policies and building codes, can also inadvertently escalate risks by classifying hazardous areas as safe for development (Burby 2006; Cutter et al. 2018). These situations are referred to as socio-hydrological phenomena caused by the complex and interconnected nature of water and society and the unintended consequences of short-sighted policies/measures.
Among the various socio-hydrological phenomena documented in the literature (Online resources 1), the safe development paradox (SDP) and the levee effect (LE) are particularly noteworthy. Both involve counterintuitive outcomes resulting from risk mitigation efforts, challenging traditional risk reduction strategies and emphasizing the need for a more holistic approach to risk management. Consequently, these phenomena have garnered increasing research attention (Breen et al. 2022).
White (1945) was the first to document the LE in a comprehensive assessment of flood adaptation. The author found that while structural protection reduces minor floods, it paradoxically encourages floodplain development, amplifying long-term damages as more people and assets become exposed to floods that exceed protection structures (i.e., residual risk). Furthermore, the absence of floods over time may lull residents into a ‘false sense of security’, impeding preparedness (White 1945). Tobin (1995) later coined the term LE, arguing that reliance on structural measures can lead to a lock-in situation, where increasing development necessitates heightened levels of protection to respond to the rising hazards. Within this context, Ferdous et al. (2019, 2020) observed that areas with levees had higher asset accumulation and population growth. Consequently, these locations grew more dependent on ever-higher levees to maintain protection against intensifying flood hazards.
The SDP was conceptualized by Burby (2006) as a phenomenon arising from government policies designed to enhance safety in hazardous areas but inadvertently escalating disaster risk. For instance, Burby (2006) and Cutter et al. (2018) documented cases where insurance, building codes, and structural flood protection classified hazardous areas as safe to build and occupy, increasing overall risk. While Burby’s (2006) study partially exemplifies the LE—focused on structural protection measures like levees—the SDP extends to non-structural approaches to disaster risk reduction. Both phenomena stem from a disconnection between adaptation intentions and outcomes and behavioral aspects of exposed individuals, such as a false sense of security. In this context, the SDP can be considered a general phenomenon that includes the LE as a subcategory (Baldassarre et al. 2019).
Despite efforts to understand the SDP and LE and prevent adverse consequences of adaptation, research on socio-hydrological phenomena is still fragmented. In this regard, Di Baldassarre et al. (2018a) proposed a research agenda for the LE, wherein the authors attribute this fragmentation in research to the lack of standardized methods and comparability between case studies. In an effort to summarize existing research, Breen et al. (2022) analyzed 42 studies investigating the SDP and LE, focusing on their temporal and spatial distribution. While this study shed light on geographical biases and offered recommendations for overcoming the SDP, the authors did not address the methodological approaches, variables, or critically examine the findings of these studies. Moreover, Breen et al. (2022) restricted their analysis solely to flood hazards.
Consequently, knowledge gaps persist in understanding the SDP and its sub-phenomenon, the LE. Indeed, the lack of a comprehensive evidence synthesis hampers our ability to identify how these phenomena manifest and what effective mitigation strategies are. Furthermore, the absence of a synthesized methodology and variable set for investigating the SDP impedes comparisons across studies (e.g., meta-analysis) and hinders our understanding of the conditions that trigger these phenomena.
To address these gaps and enhance comparability, we comprehensively analyzed the methods and variables used in SDP and LE case studies covering various hydrological hazards. Specifically, our goals were to (1) assess the geographic distribution, hazard types, and spatial scales of these studies; (2) examine the methods used to investigate the SDP and the LE; (3) identify the variables considered; (4) evaluate the empirical evidence confirming these phenomena; and (5) provide evidence on the non-structural measures and individual adaptation measures in generating or mitigating the SDP. By addressing these goals, we highlight the most and the least assessed variables and methods and contribute to understanding the different factors triggering the SDP and LE across various social, technical, and hydrological contexts. With this, we aim to provide a foundation for researchers and practitioners, facilitating comparative analyses.
2 Methods
To ensure transparency and replicability in our methodology, we conducted a systematic review following the Reporting of Strategies in Systematic Evidence Syntheses standards—ROSES (Haddaway et al. 2018). We considered English articles available up to December 31st, 2023, sourced from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. The search terms (Table 1) were selected based on relevant keywords identified by Ferdous et al. (2019) and Haer et al. (2020). The search was performed based on the title, abstract, and both author and index keywords on January 11th, 2024.
The search elicited 158 documents. After removing duplicates, we screened the unique articles (n = 94) first at the title and abstract level and then at the full-text level by considering the following inclusion criteria: (1) it addresses directly or indirectly the general phenomena SDP or the sub-phenomena LE; (2) it is available in English; (3) it does not focus exclusively on hydraulic aspects of levees or dikes; (4) it analyses a hydrological disaster, (5) it is a case study. We then performed a full-text analysis of the studies identified as relevant (n = 40). A summary of the review process is presented in Fig. 1.
To address the research goals, we categorized the selected articles according to several topics (see Table 2). For goal 1, we assessed the country where each case study was conducted, the spatial scale (based on Fischer et al. 2021), and the hydrological hazard typology based on Below et al. (2009). Fischer’s et al. (2021) spatial scales ranged from international to local, encompassing ‘social network’ studies focusing on specific social constructs as (e.g., leveed areas, development sites), ‘water bodies network’ area delimited based on a water body feature (e.g., floodplains, and deltaic regions).
For goals 2 and 3, we extracted information on the research design, the applied methods, and the variables considered to assess the SDP and the LE. Given their variety, we classified the variables according to their similarities into four distinct groups: human system (individual characteristics and behaviors), interaction (interplay between human and natural systems; these variables capture exposure and risk reduction measures), natural system (characteristics of natural elements that may contribute to hazards), and outcome (consequences of disasters). This classification acknowledges that variables can often encompass multiple hazard, vulnerability, exposure, or response dimensions. For example, adaptation can be considered within vulnerability and response groups (Rufat et al. 2015; Simpson et al. 2021), while risk perception reflects the interaction of vulnerability, exposure, and hazard.
To assess goal 4, we verified the presence of empirical evidence supporting SDP or LE and classified each article as confirming, refuting, or providing inconclusive evidence for the phenomena. Case studies with ongoing mitigation efforts were considered confirmation of the phenomenon as they demonstrate the phenomenon’s persistence rather than its absence – refutation of the phenomena. Finally, for Goal 5, we identified the non-structural protection measures explored in each study. These could be either policies (e.g., risk management, risk insurance) or individual adaptation measures (e.g., installing pumps or avoiding ground-floor living spaces). We acknowledge that some classes may overlap due to their interconnectedness. For instance, risk insurance and compensation policy classes can also be considered as a risk management policy.
3 Results
3.1 Spatio-temporal scope and scale of analysis of the reviewed articles
The reviewed case studies examining the SDP and the LE span the years 2001–2023, with a notable increase in publications on the LE over the last 6 years (Fig. 2). The publications include both direct and indirect assessments. For instance, Blanchard-Boehm et al. (2001) indirectly evaluated the SDP by analyzing the acquisition of flood insurance in generating risk, though not explicitly introducing the concept itself. The studies were conducted in 18 different countries, with the majority in the US (n = 12), followed by Italy (n = 5), Australia (n = 4), New Zealand (n = 3) and Bangladesh (n = 3). Single studies were found in Austria, Canada, China, France, India, Ireland, Japan, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Poland, Taiwan, Vietnam and the European Union. This distribution highlights the disparity in research conducted in the Global North (n = 32) and South (n = 9) (Fig. 3), a pattern also observed in previous socio-hydrology (e.g., Vanelli et al. 2021; Fischer et al. 2021; Breen et al. 2022) and natural hazard literature reviews (e.g., Emmer 2018).
Hazards assessed according to global north and global south countries. Division based on Brandt (1980)
Floods (n = 37) were the main hydrological hazard type investigated, followed by flash floods (n = 3) (Fig. 3). Despite the increasing call for multi-hazard research (de Ruiter et al. 2020), only ten studies addressed multi-hazards. Exceptions include studies that investigated floods associated with hurricanes (n = 3) (Burby 2006; Fox-Rogers et al. 2016; Malecha et al. 2021), flood, subsidence, and sea level rise (Smits et al. 2006) (n = 1), and floods, landslides, and debris flows (n = 1) (De Marchi and Scolobig 2012). No single study addressed landslides alone.
Concerning the spatial scale, the reviewed studies were developed predominantly on city scales (n = 16, 39%), followed by waterbody networks (n = 8, 19%) (areas delimited by hydrological features such as the middle and lower floodplains of the Pó River watershed as assessed by Domeneghetti et al. (2015)), neighborhood and national scales (n = 4, 9.8%), social network (n = 3, 7.3%) (areas defined by social connections and interactions, such as communities within levee-protected zones e.g., Dufty et al. (2022)) (Fig. 4). No study was conducted on a global scale. A qualitative examination showed a lack of explicit justification for the chosen spatial scales. The prevalence of city spatial scale is likely due to practical considerations, including its alignment with territorial management units, data availability, and the scale of the disasters under investigation. Within this context, Fischer et al. (2021) suggest that city-level studies often focus on water resource management (stormwater, wastewater, and human consumption) and prioritize social processes. Conversely, natural delimitations like watersheds emphasize natural processes. This helps explain the observed prevalence of city-scale studies, as assessing SDP and LE involves understanding social dynamics within human-water systems. Furthermore, most studies (n = 33, 82.5%) focused on medium-small spatial scales, including neighborhoods, cities, waterbody networks, and social networks. Interestingly, waterbody networks (e.g., delimited floodplains) were more common than the traditional larger-scale watershed focus typically found in socio-hydrology studies (Fischer et al. 2021).
Most studies (n = 33, 82.5%) explicitly assessed the LE or SDP, while the remaining mentioned it implicitly, using related terms such as the false sense of safety (e.g., Blanchard-Boehm et al. 2001; Smits et al. 2006; López-Marrero 2010; Dahal and Hagelman 2011; Lawrence et al. 2013; Rohr 2013; Salman and Hurlbert 2022). Typically, assessing these phenomena was a secondary result, not the studies` primary goal. Amongst the assessed phenomena, the LE emerged as the most prevalent (n = 32, 80.0%). Conversely, studies on the SDP were less common (n = 8, 20.0%) and primarily concentrated in North America. Seven studies acknowledge the SDP or LE but did not directly assess them (Glavovic (2014a), Glavovic (2014b), Lawrence et al. (2013), Rohr (2013), Salman and Hurlbert (2022), Smits et al. (2006), Wasson et al. (2019). Other phenomena, such as the local government paradox (Burby 2006; Cutter et al. 2018), adaptation effect (Richert et al. 2019; Michaelis et al. 2020; Mazzoleni et al. 2021; Chang et al. 2022; Salman and Hurlbert 2022), pendulum swing (Yu et al. 2020; Luu et al. 2022), and cry-wolf syndrome (Dahal and Hagelman 2011), were also identified in the reviewed articles. However, they are not presented in detail here, as they are outside the scope of this study.
3.2 Research design and methods used
We found a noticeable variation in how studies conceptualized risk, which, in turn, influenced how the phenomena were assessed. Overall, studies adopting the UNDRR (2022) definition of risk (risk = vulnerability × exposure × hazard) focused on individual behavior, adaptation, and the sense of safety aspects. Conversely, engineering-focused studies equated vulnerability to expected damage or embedded exposure within vulnerability. They often assessed the increase in assets and population (i.e., changes in exposure) within areas protected by hazard protection measures (e.g., floodplains behind levees).
The research design employed to address the SDP and LE was primarily quantitative (n = 16), followed by qualitative (n = 13) and mixed methods (n = 11). The trend toward quantitative research can be attributed to the call by Sivapalan et al. (2012) to maintain socio-hydrology as a quantitative science. A large portion of both quantitative (n = 6, 37.5%) and qualitative studies (n = 5, 41.7%) assessed the phenomena by solely addressing exposure changes, neglecting vulnerability aspects. By doing so, they fail to account for vulnerability aspects that are crucial in determining hazard impacts (Fuchs and Glade 2016; de Brito et al. 2017). In contrast, most mixed research design studies (n = 6, 54.5%) assessed both exposure changes and vulnerability among community members and stakeholders. Mixed studies provide comprehensive assessments by combining the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods (Vanelli et al. 2022) to assess exposure, hazard, and vulnerability changes.
The reviewed studies utilized a diverse range of methods (Online Resources 2 and Fig. 5). Surveys (n = 17) were the most common one, followed by spatial and demographic analysis (n = 16), document review (n = 15), and hydrological analysis/flood modeling (n = 8). Notably, 27 studies employed a combination of these. For instance, Ferdous et al. (2020) integrated surveys and demographic and spatial analysis to examine economic changes (investments, family wealth) and population shifts (urban/rural) within and outside leveed-protected areas. This wide variety of methods hampered a meta-analysis or a quantitative comparison. Therefore, we present and discuss the methods used in the context of their strengths and weaknesses in assessing the SDP and LE.
Methods employed in the reviewed studies. The “Others” class comprises methods employed by only one article (e.g., agent-based modeling). Some studies applied more than one method. A description of the methods used in each study is provided in Online Resources 2
Surveys were primarily used to observe individuals’ behavior, focusing on assessing a false sense of safety and non-protective behavior. They were also used to gather information from government stakeholders about government decisions and their disaster risk reduction activities. Most survey studies evaluated changes in vulnerability due to mitigation measures using a cross-sectional design. An exception is the study by Gissing et al. (2018), who employed a sequential design across multiple stages. Surveys were conducted through interviews (semi-structured) or questionnaires via mail, telephone, online, or face-to-face. Due to their flexibility, surveys allowed exploring in-depth risk perception and risk preparedness concepts. However, these studies often lack transparency, as many fail to describe the sample size and sampling techniques adequately. Furthermore, surveys restricted to single communities or with small sample sizes (i.e., less than 20 participants) may have limited generalizability and representativeness (Fox Rogers et al. 2016; Salman and Hurlbert 2022). Survey studies face challenges such as restricted researcher access to study areas, the COVID-19 pandemic, and individual willingness to participate (Stevens et al. 2010; Dahal and Hagelman 2011; Fox-Rogers et al. 2016; Dufty et al. 2022; Chang et al. 2022; Salman and Hurlbert 2022). Additionally, participation bias may occur, as individuals with less disaster experience or living in areas with fewer disaster records may be less interested in participating. This could lead to underestimating the prevalence of a false sense of safety.
Studies using spatial and demographic analysis (n = 16) focused on assessing exposure changes (e.g., increasing urbanization, occupation, asset accumulation, and population) within areas protected by hazard mitigation measures. To achieve this, remote sensing techniques, historical maps of human occupation, urban development modeling, and cross-comparisons have been employed. For instance, researchers have compared protected and unprotected flood-prone areas across different spatial scales to verify the relationship between mitigation structures and heightened hazard exposure (e.g. Ding et al. 2023; Ferdous et al. 2019, 2020; Collenteur et al. 2015). This group of methods faces limitations, such as the lack of detailed building type information (commercial, residential, etc.), hampering accurate flood exposure assessments (e.g., Domeneghetti et al. 2015). Remote sensing data also suffers from low spatio-temporal resolution, which hinders capturing landscape changes like building construction and levee breaches (e.g., Mandarino et al. 2023). Additionally, issues such as unavailable or inaccessible socioeconomic data limit the research scope (e.g., Ferdous et al. 2020), potentially introducing selection bias towards areas with better data quality (Chang et al. 2022). A further drawback lies in the tendency to overlook the dynamic nature of urban development and human occupation. Urban growth is often assessed solely through remote sensing data or building databases, neglecting socioeconomic factors (e.g., migration, alternative settlement locations) and physical limitations influencing land use (e.g., limited space for construction) (Ferdous et al. 2019, 2020). This can lead to inaccurate assessments of the impacts of structural or non-structural measures on occupation patterns.
Document review studies examined historical documents and policies to understand their impact on vulnerability and exposure (Malecha et al. 2021). This method was also used to elucidate the contextual background contributing to the SDP or LE. Document reviews often provide a rich historical context, allowing researchers to understand how socio-hydrological phenomena lead to increased exposure. However, limitations arise due to document availability, quality, and selection bias. These factors can hamper the comprehensiveness of the assessment and exclude relevant areas. In addition, document review studies often lack transparency regarding document selection (Bowen et al. 2009).
Lastly, we highlight hydrological analysis and flood modeling, which are employed to comprehend hydrological patterns (Massazza et al. 2021). This approach facilitates understanding changes in hazard levels and residual risks. When coupled with damage estimation and modeling, it allows for a comparative analysis between past disaster events and the current occupation status (Domeneghetti et al. 2015). Conversely, they do not directly account for changes in vulnerability and exposure, which are the phenomena’ key drivers. Therefore, they should be complemented with methodologies explicitly targeting these factors for a comprehensive assessment.
3.3 Variables employed
Only 32 studies explicitly described the variables used to assess the LE and SDP (see Table 3 and Online Resource 1). Most of them were classified as interaction (n = 24), followed by human system (n = 20), outcome (n = 15), and natural system (n = 9) variables. Interaction variables represent exposure and mitigation measures and their characteristics, such as the level of protection conferred by mitigation measures and their attributes (e.g., implementation year, improvements, operation, protected area) (Domeneghetti et al. 2015; Hutton et al. 2019; Mazzoleni et al. 2021; Ding et al. 2023). They quantify and track populations and assets over specific spatial–temporal spaces. They often include the position of exposed elements relative to levees and water bodies, population density, policy control on land occupation, and land-cover evolution. Studies primarily employed interaction variables as independent or control variables. For instance, Ferdous et al. (2019) observed that urban development (independent variable) was higher in areas protected by levees compared to unprotected or low-maintenance levee-protected areas (control variables), thereby inducing the LE (dependent variable).
Human system variables encompass risk perception, risk awareness, preparedness, adaptation, motivation to protect, coping appraisal, gender, trust in government, and prior disaster experience variables. They are often used as independent or control variables. An example is the study by Fox-Rogers et al. (2016), who observed a high flash flood threat appraisal among individuals (independent variable) accompanied by a low coping appraisal (independent variable), leading to a non-protective response (dependent variable). This finding aligns with De Marchi and Scolobig (2012), indicating that risk perception and awareness alone are insufficient to prompt protective behavior. In addition, Fox-Rogers et al. (2016) indicated that a non-protective response can be attributed to a false sense of safety due to the presence of a mitigation measure.
Outcome variables comprise attributes of past events, such as economic and human losses, as well as disaster frequency, intensity, and the affected area. These variables are often used as independent variables to represent changes in the observed or modeled disaster impact due to the implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, they directly result from the vulnerability and exposure relationship (Damage = vulnerability × exposure) (D’Angelo et al. 2020).
The last group, natural system variables, relates to hazard variables such as hazardous event maps and hydrological model outcomes representing hazards or hazard changes. These variables were mostly employed as independent variables and used to assess how hazards evolved over time, identifying their contribution to increasing risks in protected areas. For instance, Massazza et al. (2021) identified an increasing hazard level for the Niger River basin, which heightened the flood potential for Niamey’s current protection system and urban development patterns.
3.4 Empirical evidence for the SDP and Le phenomena
Most of the reviewed (SDP, n = 6, 75%; LE, n = 24, 75%) case studies provided conclusive evidence to support the occurrence of the studied phenomena (Table 4). In general, the empirical evidence can be categorized into: (a) increased development in protected areas, (b) reduced preparedness and a false sense of safety, (c) increased damage from rare disaster events, and (d) contradictory and inconclusive evidence.
3.4.1 Increased development in protected areas
About 40% of the body of research (SDP: n = 5; LE: n = 14) demonstrated that areas protected by hazard mitigation measures experienced increased urban development. Researchers have observed increased exposure, population and/or assets in areas that are susceptible to hydrological hazards, due to the building of dams and levees (Stevens et al. 2010; Collenteur et al. 2015; Hutton et al. 2019; Jiao et al. 2022; Luu et al. 2022; Fu et al. 2023; Mandarino et al. 2023). Others found a higher rate of urbanization in areas protected by hazard protection measures after implementing a mitigation measure than in unprotected areas (Georgic and Klaiber 2022; Ding et al. 2023; Ferdous et al. 2019). Land use and insurance policies were also found to facilitate the increased urbanization of protected areas (Burby 2006; Cutter et al. 2018; Malecha et al. 2021).
3.4.2 Reduced preparedness and false sense of safety
The second set of evidence supporting the SDP and the LE comprises studies that show reduced preparedness and a false sense of safety in areas with hazard protection measures (SDP n = 1; LE n = 10). These studies observed that structural measures can represent a sign of safety for residents (Babcicky and Seebauer 2019), reducing their risk perception and creating a false sense of safety (Dahal and Hagelman 2011; De Marchi and Scolobig 2012; Chang et al. 2022; Krasiewicz and Wierzbicki 2023) even before the construction is completed (López-Marrero 2010; Fox-Rogers et al. 2016). Additionally, non-structural measures, such as flood insurance, may induce the adoption of less protective measures (Blanchard-Boehm et al. 2001). As a result, mitigation measures may reduce the individual motivation to protect and prepare, as individuals in presumably protected areas tend to take fewer adaptative measures than those in unprotected flood-prone areas (Gissing et al. 2018; Richert et al. 2019).
3.4.3 Increased damage from rare disaster events
The last group of supporting evidence comprises studies demonstrating increased damage in areas with a hazard protection measure (SDP n = 2; LE n = 7). Notably, studies have observed heightened damage and/or fatalities resulting from rare disaster events in protected areas compared to unprotected areas (Ferdous et al. 2020). This trend is consistent with findings in historical records of past disasters (Massazza et al. 2021) and estimates of damage caused by extreme hydrological events in different periods (Toshiharu and Narantsetseg 2019; Jiao et al. 2022).
3.4.4 Refuting and Inconclusive evidence
Only one study presented evidence refuting the LE (Starominski-Uehara 2021). Residents living in an area protected by a dam in Brisbane, Australia, did not develop a false sense of safety due to the protective structure. The study found that householders in the protected area did not feel safe despite the dam’s presence due to their past disaster experiences and continued to take precautions. In addition, the occupation of the dam’s downstream area was attributed to the security assurance provided by the authorities.
Two studies yielded inconclusive results. Dufty et al. (2022) observed low-risk perceptions among individuals living in an area protected by a hazard protection measure. However, they did not identify reduced preparedness, with preparedness being measured through disaster insurance and the existence of flood emergency plans. Similarly, Domeneghetti et al. (2015) observed increased exposure to protected floodplains due to urbanization. However, the authors could not establish a causal link.
3.5 Relationship between the SDP and non-structural and individual measures
The relationship between the SDP and non-structural (e.g., policies) and individual adaptation and preparedness measures emerged as a focal point in most studies (n = 29, 74.4%). However, the simultaneous consideration of structural (e.g., dams, levees) and non-structural or individual measures made it challenging to isolate the impact of each measure on the SDP. To clarify this relationship, we categorized the evidence found based on the types of measures considered. Overall, studies often focused on risk management (n = 10), land use and urban development (n = 9), risk insurance or compensation (n = 9), building codes (n = 5), environmental management (n = 5), and individual adaptation and preparedness measures (n = 12) (Table 5).
The ‘risk management’ class includes disaster risk mitigation policies, preparedness, response, and recovery policies. Overall, researchers found that the effects of the SDP can be mitigated by adopting appropriate policies. For instance, Richert et al. (2019) found that risk mapping and building bans could potentially increase the residents’ risk awareness and thus reduce risk. Conversely, other studies (e.g., Stevens et al. 2010; Lawrence et al. 2013; Malecha et al. 2021; Chang et al. 2022) indicated that these policies might worsen risks by allowing further development in hazard-prone areas.
‘Land use and urban development’ policies focused on urban development were found to enable and indirectly encourage development in hazard-prone areas, while ‘environmental management’ policies can counteract this trend (Malecha et al. 2021). It was observed that ‘land-use and urban development’ policies (e.g.,land-use control, planning) and ‘building codes’ for new development in protected areas are often less stringent than in non-protected areas. For instance, individual measures such as elevating houses were not legally required in levee-protected areas (Burby 2006; Stevens et al. 2010). These studies suggest an overreliance on hazard maps, allowing unrestricted development just beyond the designated hazard zones (Lawrence et al. 2013; Malecha et al. 2021).
The studies analyzing ‘risk insurance and compensation’ policies addressed factors influencing the acquisition of insurance (Blanchard-Boehm et al. 2001) and the impact on risk perception and development (Burby 2006; Cutter et al. 2018). Research conducted in the US suggests these policies may create a false sense of security, hindering individual adaptation (Burby 2006; Cutter et al. 2018). However, other studies have not observed insurance effects, possibly due to mitigation factors from other policies (e.g., Richert et al. 2019).
Finally, one-fourth of the studies (n = 12) assessed ‘individual adaptation and preparedness’ measures. Adaptation measures, such as raising the house floor, dry or wet proofing, and taking insurance, are used to reduce human and asset exposure. Preparedness measures, such as placing sandbags and raising furniture, enhance response capabilities. The presence of such practices indicates attempts to mitigate risk, as individuals do not present a false sense of safety or unprotective behavior. However, López-Marrero (2010) noted that individuals who performed individual measures might present a reduced risk perception as they might be less exposed to hazards.
In summary, non-structural measures present a dual nature and can both enhance and mitigate the SDP. Malecha et al. (2021) found that smaller spatial scales of policy application, such as district and municipal plans, are more prone to urban development and resistant to risk reduction compared to regional or state-level policies. Also, flood insurance schemes and land use policies may stimulate exposure by removing the requirement for elevating houses in areas protected by hazard protection measures as a condition for insurance coverage (Burby 2006; Cutter et al. 2018). Therefore, targeted policies are necessary to prevent occupation and increased exposure in undeveloped flood-prone areas (Burby 2006). In addition, given the dynamic nature of hazards, especially in the context of climate change, adaptable policies that are not overly reliant on static hazard maps are essential (Lawrence et al. 2013; Malecha et al. 2021).
4 Discussion and recommendations for further research
This study has presented a systematic review of 40 studies that assessed the SDP and LE, aiming to provide an overall picture of existing evidence confirming or refuting their occurrence, as well as the methods and variables used to investigate them. One of the new insights of this study relates to the complex dynamics between structural, non-structural, and individual mitigation measures in influencing the SDP and LE. While previous research has primarily focused on structural measures like dams and levees, our study reviewed the impact of non-structural measures, such as land-use policies. For instance, policies restricting development in flood-prone areas, such as zoning regulations and building codes, can reduce the SDP. Conversely, policies encouraging development in these zones, such as subsidies or tax incentives, may inadvertently exacerbate the risk. In general, we found that the impacts of non-structural and individual measures remain less understood. This limitation calls for a deeper investigation into how they might trigger the SDP and LE.
Another key finding is the intricate interplay of variables like risk perception, preparedness, and individual adaptation in shaping the SDP and LE. These factors, often sidelined, play a pivotal role in the effectiveness of mitigation measures. These variables are key drivers of SDP and LE, but their complexity and interaction with various social factors present a challenge. For example, individuals with high-risk perception may be more likely to engage in preparedness activities and adopt individual adaptation measures, which can mitigate the SDP and LE (Richert et al. 2019). However, the presence of structural mitigation measures may lead to a false sense of safety, reducing risk perception and preparedness (Di Baldassarre et al. 2018a). Hence, further research is needed to determine how these variables interact with the effectiveness of disaster risk reduction interventions.
Due to their complex nature, we found that 40% of the studies provide a fragmented understanding of the SDP and LE, concentrating only on exposure or hazard as evidence to confirm their occurrence. However, this narrow focus may lead to overestimations, as it overlooks crucial vulnerability factors such as coping capacity, risk perception, individual adaptation, and the false sense of safety. Consequently, the mere urbanization or population increase of protected areas cannot definitively affirm the occurrence of these phenomena, as individual adaptation and preparedness measures may still be in place. Similarly, stagnant or declining populations within protected areas do not definitively demonstrate the absence or mitigation of these phenomena. Householders may still exhibit a false sense of safety and be inhibited from adopting protective behavior. Hence, we argue that studies centered exclusively on exposure and/or hazard need a complementary vulnerability assessment to better understand the actual risk and provide evidence on the phenomena.
Our review highlights the need for interdisciplinary approaches to understand the SDP and LE. However, the diversity in methods to investigate the SDP and LE poses challenges for broader analysis, as also observed by other researchers investigating adaptation-related concepts (Rufat et al. 2022; Kuhlicke et al. 2023). In fact, the interplay between structural and non-structural measures and urban development in hazard-prone areas remains poorly quantified (Ding et al. 2023), obscuring an objective assessment. While spatial and demographic analysis is one of the primary methods used, it sometimes offers misleading evidence about increased development in hazard-protected areas. This biased perspective overlooks cases where less populous or urbanized regions might still face SDP and LE due to increased vulnerability from mitigation measures (Ferdous et al. 2019).
Most of the reviewed studies concentrated on flood-related hazards. However, disaster mitigation strategies targeting landslides and multi-hazards can also trigger the SDP and LE. Also, similar to other reviews, we found that a key limitation in SDP and LE research is its narrow geographical focus, particularly the underrepresentation of the Global South (Breen et al. 2022). The relative scarcity of research in these regions should not be interpreted as an absence of SDP and LE phenomena. Instead, it should be seen as an opportunity to promote further research in these geographical contexts.
Despite the advancements presented, some limitations need to be acknowledged. Firstly, our focus on English literature and the search terms used limited the comprehensiveness of our findings. We primarily analyzed studies that directly assessed the SDP and LE, but many other socio-hydrological phenomena exist (Table 1). Future studies could explore indirect assessments of SDP and LE, incorporating research of fields other than socio-hydrology (e.g., economics) and considering other languages. Additionally, examining the relationship of these phenomena with broader concepts like moral hazard Hudson and Berghäuser (2023) could offer valuable insights. Secondly, the heterogeneity of variables and methodologies across studies hampered a meta-analysis. In fact, most studies did not provide quantitative assessments due to the complexity of doing so. Despite this limitation, our synthesis of methods and variables still provides relevant insights for promoting increased comparability in future research. Lastly, our review focused solely on SDP and LE in the context of hydrological hazards (e.g., floods, landslides). However, we did encounter studies investigating these phenomena in relation to other natural hazards, such as hurricanes, droughts, and tsunamis. This suggests that future research could explore whether and how the SDP and LE are addressed for different hazard typologies, potentially identifying transferable methods and best practices.
5 Conclusion
In this systematic review, we have critically examined 40 case studies investigating the safe development paradox and the levee effect phenomena within the broader context of socio-hydrological systems. By analyzing the methods and variables across the reviewed studies, we aimed to facilitate the standardization of approaches and pave the way for future meta-analyses, currently hindered by methodological and variable heterogeneity.
We found that existing research predominantly focuses on flood risk, structural mitigation measures, and Global North studies, overlooking the influence of non-structural and individual measures alone on the SDP. Hence, future research should examine how these measures can also trigger the SDP. Relying solely on exposure variables as a single metric to investigate the SDP and LE proved insufficient as it obscures the complex interplay of policies and individual measures for mitigating risk. We thus advocate for integrating exposure and vulnerability assessments to deliver more robust evidence in understanding these socio-hydrological phenomena.
In conclusion, our study adds to the growing body of knowledge on socio-hydrological systems and disaster risk management. We emphasize the need for holistic, integrated approaches that consider structural, non-structural, and individual measures and call for expanded research in underrepresented regions. As hydrological hazards are expected to intensify worldwide, understanding and addressing the complexities of the SDP and LE becomes ever more crucial in building resilient communities. Within this context, a more comprehensive analysis will deepen our understanding of these phenomena, leading to insights into effective mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Online Resource 2.
References
Babcicky P, Seebauer S (2019) Unpacking protection motivation theory: evidence for a separate protective and non-protective route in private flood mitigation behavior. J Risk Res 22:1503–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1485175
Below R, Wirtz A, Guha-Sapir D (2009) Disaster category classification and peril terminology for operational purposes
Blanchard-Boehm RD, Berry KA, Showalter PS (2001) Should flood insurance be mandatory? Insights in the wake of the 1997 New Year’s Day flood in Reno-Sparks, Nevada. Appl Geogr 21:199–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-6228(01)00009-1
Blöschl G, Viglione A, Montanari A (2013) Emerging approaches to hydrological risk management in a changing world. Climate vulnerability. Elsevier, pp 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384703-4.00505-0
Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 9:27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brandt W (1980) North-South: a programme for survival; report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues
Breen MJ, Kebede AS, König CS (2022) The safe development paradox in flood risk management: a critical review. Sustain (Switzerland) 14:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416955
Burby RJ (2006) Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 604:171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205284676
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) (2023) 2022 Disasters in Numbers
Chang HS, Su Q, Jheng DC (2022) Comparing the spatial patterns of flooding and individual risk perception: a case study of Yunlin. Taiwan Urban Clim 45:101260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101260
Collenteur RA, de Moel H, Jongman B, Di Baldassarre G (2015) The failed-levee effect: Do societies learn from flood disasters? Nat Hazards 76:373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1496-6
Cutter SL, Emrich CT, Gall M, Reeves R (2018) Flash flood risk and the paradox of urban development. Nat Hazards Rev 19:05017005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000268
D’Angelo C, Fiori A, Volpi E (2020) Structural, dynamic and anthropic conditions that trigger the emergence of the levee effect: insight from a simplified risk-based framework. Hydrol Sci J 65:914–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1729985
Dahal KR, Hagelman R (2011) People’s risk perception of glacial lake outburst flooding: a case of Tsho Rolpa Lake. Nepal Environ Hazards 10:154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2011.582310
de Brito MM, Evers M, Höllermann B (2017) Prioritization of flood vulnerability, coping capacity and exposure indicators through the Delphi technique: a case study in Taquari-Antas basin, Brazil. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 24:119–128
de Ruiter MC, Couasnon A, van den Homberg MJC et al (2020) Why we can no longer ignore consecutive disasters. Earths Future 8:e2019EF001425. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001425
De Marchi B, Scolobig A (2012) The views of experts and residents on social vulnerability to flash floods in an Alpine region of Italy. Disasters 36:316–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01252.x
Di Baldassarre G, Viglione A, Carr G et al (2013) Socio-hydrology: conceptualising human-flood interactions. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:3295–3303. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3295-2013
Di Baldassarre G, Kreibich H, Vorogushyn S et al (2018a) Hess opinions: an interdisciplinary research agenda to explore the unintended consequences of structural flood protection. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 22:5629–5637. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5629-2018
Di Baldassarre G, Wanders N, AghaKouchak A et al (2018b) Water shortages worsened by reservoir effects. Nat Sustain 1:617–622. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0159-0
Di Baldassarre G, Sivapalan M, Rusca M et al (2019) Sociohydrology: scientific challenges in addressing the sustainable development goals. Water Resour Res 55:6327–6355. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023901
Ding M, Lin P, Gao S et al (2023) Reversal of the levee effect towards sustainable floodplain management. Nat Sustain 6:1578–1586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01202-9
Domeneghetti A, Carisi F, Castellarin A, Brath A (2015) Evolution of flood risk over large areas: quantitative assessment for the Po river. J Hydrol (amst) 527:809–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.05.043
Dufty N, Garrett R, Osso FD, Sanborn K (2022) Living behind the Launceston levee: insights from a community survey. Aust J Emerg Manag 37:29–34
Emmer A (2018) Geographies and scientometrics of research on natural hazards. Geosciences 8:382. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8100382
Ferdous MR, Wesselink A, Brandimarte L et al (2019) The levee effect along the Jamuna River in Bangladesh. Water Int 44:496–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1619048
Ferdous MR, Di Baldassarre G, Brandimarte L, Wesselink A (2020) The interplay between structural flood protection, population density, and flood mortality along the Jamuna River, Bangladesh. Reg Environ Change 20:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01600-1
Fischer A, Miller JA, Nottingham E et al (2021) A systematic review of spatial-temporal scale issues in sociohydrology. Front Water 3:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.730169
Fox-Rogers L, Devitt C, O’Neill E et al (2016) Is there really “nothing you can do”? Pathways to enhanced flood-risk preparedness. J Hydrol (amst) 543:330–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.009
Fu X, Bell R, Reu Junqueira J et al (2023) Managing rising residual flood risk: a national survey of Aotearoa-New Zealand. J Flood Risk Manag 16(4):e12944. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12944
Fuchs S, Glade T (2016) Foreword: Vulnerability assessment in natural hazard risk—a dynamic perspective. Nat Hazards 82:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2289-x
Georgic W, Klaiber HA (2022) A flood of construction: the role of levees in urban floodplain development. Land Econ 98:78–97. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.98.1.071520-0106R1
Gissing A, Van Leeuwen J, Tofa M, Haynes K (2018) Flood levee influences on community preparedness: A paradox? Aust J Emerg Manag 33:38–43
Glavovic BC (2014a) The 2004 Manawatu Floods, New Zealand: integrating flood risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Adapting to climate change. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 231–268
Glavovic BC (2014b) Waves of adversity, layers of resilience: floods, hurricanes, oil spills and climate change in the mississippi delta. In: Glavovic BC, Smith GP (eds) Adapting to climate change. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 369–403
Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS (2018) ROSES reporting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid 7:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7
Haer T, Husby TG, Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH (2020) The safe development paradox: an agent-based model for flood risk under climate change in the European Union. Glob Environ Change 60:102009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102009
Hudson P, Berghäuser L (2023) Investigating moral hazard and property-level flood resilience measures through panel data from Germany. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 84:103480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103480
Hutton NS, Tobin GA, Montz BE (2019) The levee effect revisited: processes and policies enabling development in Yuba County, California. J Flood Risk Manag 12:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12469
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2022) Climate Change 2022 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Jiao S, Li W, Wen J et al (2022) Spatiotemporal changes of manufacturing firms in the flood prone Yangtze Delta Spatiotemporal changes of manufacturing fi rms in the flood. Environ Hazards 21:334–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2021.1988502
Krasiewicz DW, Wierzbicki G (2023) Flood perception from local perspective of rural community vs. geomorphological control of fluvial processes in large Alluvial Valley (the Middle Vistula River, Poland). Hydrol 10:191. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology10100191
Kuhlicke C, de Brito MM, Bartkowski B et al (2023) Spinning in circles? A systematic review on the role of theory in social vulnerability, resilience and adaptation research. Glob Environ Change 80:102672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102672
Lawrence J, Reisinger A, Mullan B, Jackson B (2013) Exploring climate change uncertainties to support adaptive management of changing flood-risk. Environ Sci Policy 33:133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.05.008
López-Marrero T (2010) An integrative approach to study and promote natural hazards adaptive capacity: a case study of two flood-prone communities in Puerto Rico. Geogr J 176:150–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00353.x
Luu T, Verhallen M, Tran DD et al (2022) Statistically examining the connection between dike development and human perceptions in the floodplains’ socio-hydrology system of Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Sci Total Environ 810:152207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152207
Malecha ML, Woodruff SC, Berke PR (2021) Planning to exacerbate flooding: evaluating a houston, texas, network of plans in place during hurricane harvey using a plan integration for resilience scorecard. Nat Hazards Rev 22:04021030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000470
Mandarino A, Faccini F, Luino F et al (2023) Integrated approach for the study of urban expansion and river floods aimed at hydrogeomorphic risk reduction. Remote Sens (Basel) 15:4158. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174158
Massazza G, Bacci M, Descroix L et al (2021) Recent changes in hydroclimatic patterns over medium Niger river basins at the origin of the 2020 flood in Niamey (Niger). Water (Switzerland) 13:1659. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13121659
Mazzoleni M, Odongo VO, Mondino E, Di Baldassarre G (2021) Water management, hydrological extremes, and society: modeling interactions and phenomena. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12643-260404
McDermott TKJ (2022) Global exposure to flood risk and poverty. Nat Commun 13:3529. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30725-6
Michaelis T, Brandimarte L, Mazzoleni M (2020) Capturing flood-risk dynamics with a coupled agent-based and hydraulic modelling framework. Hydrol Sci J 65:1458–1473. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1750617
Opperman JJ, Galloway GE, Fargione J et al (1979) (2009) Sustainable floodplains through large-scale reconnection to rivers. Sci 326:1487–1488. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178256
Richert C, Erdlenbruch K, Grelot F (2019) The impact of flood management policies on individual adaptation actions: insights from a French case study. Ecol Econ 165:106387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106387
Rohr C (2013) Floods of the upper Danube river and its tributaries and their impact on urban economies (c. 1350–1600): the examples of the towns of Krems/Stein and Wels (Austria). Environ Hist Camb 19:133–148. https://doi.org/10.3197/096734013X13642082568534
Roos MMD, Hartmann TT, Spit TTJM, Johann GG (2017) Constructing risks – Internalisation of flood risks in the flood risk management plan. Environ Sci Policy 74:23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.007
Rufat S, de Brito MM, Fekete A et al (2022) Surveying the surveyors to address risk perception and adaptive-behaviour cross-study comparability. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 22:2655–2672. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2655-2022
Salman A, Hurlbert M (2022) Social learning resulting from three consecutive flood events in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, Canada. Water (switzerland) 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081186
Simpson NP, Mach KJ, Constable A et al (2021) A framework for complex climate change risk assessment. One Earth 4:489–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.03.005
Sivapalan M, Savenije HHG, Blöschl G (2012) Socio-hydrology: a new science of people and water. Hydrol Process 26:1270–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8426
Smits AJM, Nienhuis PH, Saeijs HLF (2006) Changing estuaries, changing views. Hydrobiologia 565:339–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-1924-4
Starominski-Uehara M (2021) How structural mitigation shapes risk perception and affects decision-making. Disasters 45:46–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12412
Stevens MR, Song Y, Berke PR (2010) New Urbanist developments in flood-prone areas: Safe development, or safe development paradox? Nat Hazards 53:605–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9450-8
Tobin GA (1995) The levee love affair: A stormy relationship? J Am Water Resour Assoc 31:359–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1995.tb04025.x
Toshiharu K, Narantsetseg C (2019) Long term changes in flooding around Gifu City. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci 42:421–427. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-3-W8-421-2019
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (2022) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2022: Our World at Risk: Transforming Governance for a Resilient Future. Geneva
Vanelli FM, Kobiyama M, de Brito MM (2021) To which extent are socio-hydrology studies really integrative? The case of natural hazards and disaster research. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2021:1–27
Vanelli FM, Kobiyama M, Ávila IG, Fusinato E, de Brito MM (2022) An integrative approach for overcoming dichotomous thinking in natural hazards and disasters research. In: Magnoni L, Mello Magnoni MG, Cabral M et al (eds) Ensino de Geografia e a Redução do Risco de Desastres em espaços urbanos e rurais, 1st edn. Centro Paula Souza, São Paulo, pp 697–719
Wasson RJ, Jain V, Katuri A, Lahiri S, Parkash S, Singhvi AK, Varma N, Bansal P, Joon Chuah C (2019) Riverine flood hazard: part B. Disaster risk reduction in India. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad 85:65–76
White GF (1945) Human ajustment to floods: a geographical aproach to the flood problem in the United States. University of Chicago, Chicago
Yu DJ, Chang H, Davis TT et al (2020) Socio-hydrology: an interplay of design and self-organization in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 25:1–16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11887-250422
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Author E. Fusinato has received a research scholarship from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Grant Number: 131972/2021-9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
E. F. contributed to the conceptualization, data curation, visualization, investigation, methodology and writing (original draft preparation, and review and editing). S. H. contributed to writing (review and editing). M. K. contributed to the project administration and supervision. M.M. de B. contributed to the conceptualization, visualization, methodology, supervision, and writing (original draft preparation, and review and editing).
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to publish
The authors are indeed informed and agree to publish.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Fusinato, E., Han, S., Kobiyama, M. et al. Safe development paradox: evidence and methodological insights from a systematic review. Nat Hazards (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06774-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06774-z