International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Fair strategies to tackle unfair risks? Justice considerations within

flood risk management
Mathilde de Goër de Herve
Risk and Environmental Studies, Karlstad University, 651 88, Karlstad, Sweden
Centre for Research on Sustainable Societal Transformation, Karlstad University, Sweden
Centre for Societal Risk Research, Karlstad University, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Risk management, justice (i.e. equity, fairness), and sustainability are tightly interconnected. This
Fairness literature review investigates how and why justice is considered in flood risk management. 20
Justice scientific documents published between 2015 and 2020 are analyzed in depth. The results show a
Equity distinction between distributive and procedural justice and a complicated judgment of fairness
Risk management based on different philosophies that vary depending on the country, the type of flood, and the
Floods
type of strategy studied. Equity is found to be an under-discussed topic compared to its impor­
Flood risk justice
tance. Justice in flood risk management matters because (i) the impacts of floods affect different
people unevenly, (ii) the interest in equity evinced by public authorities influences societal
transformation, and (iii) the perception of fairness matters at both individual and collective
levels. This paper analyzes the link between justice considerations and sustainability in relation to
four dimensions: social, ecological, spatial, and temporal. Social and spatial issues are the most
commonly studied in the literature, while ecological and temporal ones have generally been
overlooked, creating a research gap. The results are discussed in terms of their diversities of
justice concepts, places of investigation, and types of strategies. Various justice frameworks are
used, but since none of them focus specifically on the contribution of flood risk management to
sustainability through justice considerations, a flood risk justice framework is developed, which
translates into theoretical and practical tools. It is based on the considerations of both humans
and non-humans into different spatio-temporal scales.

1. Introduction: the imbrication of sustainability, risk management, and justice

2015 was a crucial year in the promotion of both sustainable development and risk management with the adoption of several key
international agreements such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement, and the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. “There is substantial interest and merit in pursuing integrated approaches to the three post-2015
agendas” ([1]; p. 27). Kelman, Gaillard, and Mercer [2] advocated this integrated approach already in 2015. Indeed, sustainability and
risk management are closely interrelated issues: successful transformation must go through risk-informed sustainable development
[3], especially in light of climate change [4,5] and its related risks such as floods. In this context, this paper aims at investigating the
nexus between risk management and sustainability through justice. To do so, a literature review of justice considerations in flood risk
management is conducted and analyzed.
Risk is often viewed as a combination of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability [4], and risk management embraces broad processes

E-mail address: mathilde.degoerdeherve@kau.se.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102745
Received 24 May 2021; Received in revised form 24 November 2021; Accepted 20 December 2021
Available online 22 December 2021
2212-4209/© 2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

defined as “activities to handle risk” ([6]; p. 8). It includes strategies for prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery of disaster
events (PPRR model), as well as other actions such as “addressing the underlying drivers of risk, preventing the creation of new risks,
reducing the existing stock of risk and strengthening the resilience of nations and communities” ([3]; p. 28). Aven [7] reviews many
principles which show that risk management is a broad concept encompassing a wide range of diverse strategies. In order to narrow the
scope, this paper focuses on societal risk management and considers in particular the example of floods.
Perspectives on sustainability can inform risk management for it to contribute to the current development of societies. There is no
consensus on a unique definition of the concept of sustainability and Walker and Shove [8] point out the ambivalence of the term.
“There is only one consensus among sustainability researchers – that of the broad variety and different connotations and definitions of
sustainable development” ([9]; p. 83). According to Martinuzzi and Meyer [9]; sustainability is characterized by three main com­
ponents which are suitable for the framing of this study: vertical, horizontal, and intergenerational integrations. Horizontal integration
is related to the targets. They are various and often categorized in relation to the three pillars of sustainability (social, environmental,
economic), sometimes extended with complementary pillars such as culture or policy. Vertical integration is related to territories since
it is important that different places and geographical scales can accommodate joint action towards shared goals. Intergenerational
integration is based on the definition of sustainability from the so-called Brundtland report and relates to the importance of long-term
perspectives. Building on these three components of sustainability, this article considers the following four aspects relevant for risk
management. First, sustainability deals with protecting all living entities, humans and non-humans (social and ecological issues), since
the targets of horizontal integration are related to the well-being of people or the well-being of natural entities. Secondly, sustainability
handles long-term management of available resources and risks in order to offer future generations the same or better conditions for
well-being compared to today (temporal issues). This aspect extends the inter-generational integration to include future non-human
entities. Finally, sustainability is a global challenge and thus needs to happen everywhere to be effective (spatial issues). As underlined
by vertical integration, the actions taken in one territory to be more sustainable should not prevent the possibility of sustainable
development for others.
Justice (i.e. equity, fairness) is an essential and necessary element of sustainability [10]. Fairness is relevant for all the identified
issues: social, ecological, temporal, and spatial. Social justice is an important lever of sustainable development since social issues
constitute one of the traditional three pillars of sustainability. If the concept of social justice has evolved over time [11], a common
current understanding is that it concerns the equality of opportunities and outcomes in a society [12], inherently linked to the
socio-economic positions of people [13]. Justice in relation to sustainability can cover many more dimensions than the social ones,
such as intergenerational justice [14,15] and multispecies justice [16].
Justice considerations are also essential to risk management. For instance, social and environmental aspects of justice are
intrinsically connected to climate change adaptation and mitigation [17,18], which is a part of risk management. In addition, equity
has historically been proven to be an important factor for successful risk management, since “in more equitable societies, both assets
and risks are more evenly distributed” (p. 118) and decision-making processes more flexible and adaptable [19]. Justice issues related
to risks are increasing concerns locally and internationally, as the rich literature on environmental and climate justice asserts. There is
no unique definition of environmental justice [20,21], but simplified descriptions generally refer to environmental injustice as the
uneven repartition of environmental risks among different social groups in society. There are also various definitions of climate justice
[22], and to put it simply, climate justice concerns who is responsible for climate change, who suffers the most from climate-related
risks, and the ability of the latter to protect themselves. Disaster justice is a new and growing field of research. According to Luka­
siewicz [23]; it is at the intersection of environmental, climate, and social justice. It aims at addressing all steps of disaster management
through the lens of justice [23].
Thus, societal risk management, sustainability, and equity are three imbricated components of a complex system. Since risk
management contributes to sustainable transformation, and since justice is an essential component of sustainability, this intersection
opens up a study area which approaches the contribution of risk management to sustainability through justice considerations. The
present paper adds to this field of research. In light of the above description of sustainability, four dimensions are identified as essential
when judging the fairness of risk management in order to promote sustainable development: social justice (between groups of people
sharing socio-economic-cultural characteristics), ecological justice (between humans and non-humans, as well as between different
non-human entities), spatial justice (between different areas), and temporal justice (between current and future living entities).
This paper aims to investigate why and how justice is considered within societal risk management research since 2015, identify
gaps related to its potential contribution to sustainability as well as discuss the way of framing these issues. It results in the suggestion
of a new justice framework specifically applicable to risk management.
Floods have been selected as the focus of this investigation because they have been the most frequent natural hazard turning into
disasters between 2000 and 2019 [24], and “overall, floods have affected more people than any other type of disaster in the 21st
century” ([25]; p. 1). Fairness has been a concern related to flood risk for several years. For instance, Walker and Burningham [26]
conclude their analysis of flood risk and injustice in the United Kingdom by stating that there is evidence of inequalities in exposure
and vulnerability to flood risks and that there are grounds for claims of injustice based on the processes producing patterns of
inequality, the decisional system of risk management, and the consequences of climate change. Matczak and Hegger [27] more
recently underline the important emergence of discussions about justice in flood risk governance. Since “flood risk is inherently unfair”
([28]; p. 387), there is a need of integrating justice in flood risk management. Sustainability is also a relevant issue when it comes to
flood risk management. Floods can be a threat to sustainable development because of their effects on the economy, the environment,
and human health [29]. In addition, Johnson et al. [28] note that sustainable development policy goals have influenced flood risk
management in England since the beginning of the century. The fundamental policy position for flood risk management in England and
Wales since 2000 is therefore “to manage flood risks equitably and in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable

2
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

Table 1
Keywords for information retrieval.

Concept Risk Management Justice

Keywords Risk* Management *just*

Disaster* Governance *fair*
Hazard* Decision* *equit*
Choice*
Strateg*
Proce*
Polic*

Table 2
Information retrieval process (15th of September 2021).

Step Research stream on Scopus (equivalent is used in WoS) Scopus WoS

#1 TITLE (risk* OR disaster* OR hazard*) 936,960 884,750

#2 TITLE (*just* OR *fair* OR *equit*) 298,638 262,216
#3 TITLE-ABS-KEY (management OR governance OR decision* OR choice* OR strateg* OR proce* OR polic*) 23,290,318 12,152,666
#4 #1 AND #2 AND #3 3297 2120
#5 #4 with date of publication from 2015 to 2020 included only 1268 935
#6 #5 with language (English) only 1220 899
#7 #6 with type of documents (article OR book chapter OR conference paper OR review OR Book) only 1153 849
#8 #7 with subject areas (Social Sciences OR Environmental Sciences OR Decision Sciences OR Earth and Planetary Sciences 376 105
OR Multidisciplinary) only in Scopus
#7 with research areas (Environmental Sciences OR Ecology OR Environmental Studies OR Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
OR Urban Studies OR Social Issues OR Geography Physical OR Geography) only in WoS
#9 #8 with search within results (flood*) 63 17

development” (p. 375). All these reasons make floods relevant to study in relation to the theme of this article.
The following section presents the literature review methods. Then the findings from the review are detailed in the results part,
divided into three fields of investigation: how justice is understood in relation to flood risk management, why it is important to take
justice into consideration within flood risk management, and the contribution to sustainability of justice concerns in flood risk
management. The last part discusses the various connections between justice and flood risk management and suggests a new way of
framing justice in flood risk management in order to consider several dimensions of its contribution to sustainability.

2. Methods
The results are based on a scoping literature review. Munn et al. [30] identify six purposes for this kind of review; this paper aims at
addressing two of them: to clarify key concepts/definitions in the literature and to identify and analyze knowledge gaps.
A pilot literature review was completed previous to the one presented here to determine the most relevant keywords for infor­
mation retrieval. The final selection of keywords for each umbrella concept (‘risk’, ‘management’ and ‘justice’) is presented in Table 1.
The use of the truncation symbol * allows for searches that consider prefixes and suffixes when relevant. It was mostly used for
integrating the plural forms of the words, and also the negation in the ‘justice’ concept since in/unjust(ices), unjust, unfair(ness) and
inequity(ies) could also yield relevant documents.
Note that the word proce* can bring results both related to procedure(s) and process(es). During the pilot review, Cris*, Cata­
stroph* and *rgenc* were considered as possibilities in the concept of ‘risk’ but their results focused mostly on very short-term de­
cision-making and individual health risks, which are not the focus of the current paper. They have therefore been excluded. The pilot
review showed that justice, fairness, and equity are used as synonyms while ethics is a different concept, thus the search term *ethic*
has also been excluded.
The steps of the information retrieval process are presented in Table 2. Since risk studies are a combination of natural and social
sciences, the databases Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) have been selected, the first one for its diversity in social and physical
sciences (see Ref. [31]), the second one for its selection of technological and social sciences (see Ref. [32]).
After removing duplicates, the total number of unique documents from the information retrieval is 65.
Step #4 is limiting the literature review to documents written since 2015. This choice was made in accordance with the context
described in the introduction. Since international guidelines for both sustainability and disaster risk management have been renewed,
the recent literature is the most relevant for current practitioners. Note that considering English literature only (step #6) is limiting the
results to a certain cultural background and point of view. In the final selection, most documents present case studies in North America
(6 in the USA, 2 in Canada) and Europe (7, mostly Western Europe, only one includes countries in Eastern Europe and Russia). The
other countries represented are Bangladesh (2), Pakistan (1), and Thailand (1). One other does not focus on any particular
geographical area. The selected literature addresses various management strategies such as long-term resilience building, recovery
support, or insurance programs. This diversity of geographical areas and types of strategies makes the review summary challenging but
allows a broader understanding of the meaning of justice within flood risk management. Another important decision was to select only
articles in which the concept of risk and the concept of justice are at the center of the research, and thus have related words in the title

3
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

itself (steps #1 and #2). This is based on the results found in the pilot literature review in which these words were considered in all
titles, abstracts, and keywords. The number of documents found with these broad research streams was too high for a scoping literature
review that aims at assessing the state of a research field without going into detail. Therefore, some references that could have been
relevant are not included (e.g. Refs. [33,34]). It is likely that the relevant articles which do not include a synonym of risk or justice in
their titles appear as citations within the ones that do, so that their ideas are still indirectly included.
Out of the 65 documents, all abstracts were read and 20 documents were selected for full reading based on their relevance for the
topic studied in this article. The inclusion criteria stipulated a clear justice dimension, that the main case study was about flooding, and
that the analysis could inform just risk management. The main exclusion criteria for the other documents were a focus on another type
of risk than floods (or no mention of floods in the abstract), unclear uses of the justice concept, individual decision-making focus,
specific tool focus, non-suitable type of document such as short opinion articles, and the term ‘adjust(ment)’ instead of a synonym of
justice in the title. The final selection included 16 articles published in scientific journals (15 were peer-reviewed and one has been
reviewed by a panel of editors), one conference paper, and three book chapters. The content was coded following a thematic analysis,
which aims to identify themes and/or patterns in the collected qualitative data [35]. The main themes involved justifications for an
interest in justice in relation to flood management and the aspects of justice analyzed, with particular attention to the four dimensions
of justice contributing to sustainability: social, ecological, spatial, and temporal. The results are presented in the following section.

3. Results
The literature review confirms that floods constitute a relevant example when it comes to justice consideration in societal risk
management because of the importance of flood-related damage and the expected increase of flood risks. Both of these phenomena can
impact sustainability.
Gourevitch et al. [36] explain that “flooding is the most common, widely experienced, and deadliest natural disaster globally” (p.
1). Floods threaten a huge part of the worldwide population [37], and concern both the so-called ‘Global North’ (e.g. Ref. [38–41]) and
‘Global South’ [42–45]. The main reason for this exposure is historical settlements near water accesses [38].
Floods are a major societal concern [46] because of their numerous serious effects. The loss of human lives [36,43,45,46], and the
adverse effects on health [46,47] are considerable, including effects on mental health [43]. Sherwin [47] insists on health conse­
quences resulting from pollutant inputs carried by floods. The economic consequences of floods are also important [43–45,47], with
for instance the direct loss of habitats making families and individuals homeless. Marks et al. [43] underline that economic damages
can also be indirect, for example the incapacity to work and thus earn an income. In addition, floods can have specific consequences
that combine economic and human features, since they impact the “traditional practices, community infrastructures and cultural sites”
(p. 297) of indigenous communities [48]. All these impacts affect the functionality of both urban and rural systems according to
Montgomery and Chakraborty [46].
The risks of flooding have increased over the last decade [44], are still increasing [49], and are expected to increase even more in
the future because of both human and natural features [36]. There are several reasons for this expectation: climate change [38,39,
50–53], and its related sea-level rise [47,48]; urbanization and growing population settling in exposed areas [39,41,42,50,51]; eco­
nomic development [39]; and changes in land-use patterns [38,47].
Begg [37] underlines that the management of flood risks is getting more complex over time. Because of the increasing risks,
combined economic and financial crises, and technical limitations, Thaler and Hartmann [41] also point out that flood management is
becoming more and more difficult. They argue that choices have to be made, especially about who should be protected and who should
not. O’Hare and White [51] agree: “Given the uncertainty surrounding flood risk […] complete protection against flooding is
impossible” (p. 387). Thaler et al. [53] highlight that these decisions have to be made rather quickly because of the emergency of
climate change adaptation, and that the new context challenges traditional strategies so new ones are implemented and need to be
tested and discussed.
The necessary choices raise justice issues, purposely or not. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how justice is considered and
why it matters within flood risk management, as well as how it contributes to sustainable development in a global context.

3.1. How? The difficulty of defining justice within flood risk management
Adger et al. [38] define fairness a bit differently from justice, but the rest of the literature considers them as synonyms together with
equity (see e.g. Ref. [50]). Fairness is different from equality [54] since a strategy can be unequal and still considered fair.
Among the reviewed literature, one study considers justice as a tool for urban planners and risk communication [55]; otherwise (in)
justice is seen as a characteristic of the strategies, the impact of disasters, or the decision-making procedure. Justice considerations are
present in different facets of risk management: preventive management and pre-disaster preparedness (e.g. Refs. [41,42,50,55]),
response during the event [43], and post-disaster recovery (e.g. Refs. [38,44]).
The literature uses different justice frameworks as a background of their studies: social justice (e.g. Refs. [49,52]), environmental
justice (e.g. Refs. [42,46]), disaster justice (e.g. Ref. [43]), climate justice (e.g. Refs. [53,55]), and flood disadvantage [51]. Despite the
various theoretical frameworks, the literature reveals two distinct justice areas within flood risk management: procedural and
distributive (also sometimes called distributional) justice. Procedural justice is about the process of management choices and who
decides which strategy should be implemented, while distributive justice is about the allocation of benefits and burdens of the risk
itself and the management strategies. These two areas of justice are highly interrelated and influence each other [38]. The procedural
system impacts the distribution of resources [51,53] with the power structure playing an important role in unjust allocations [40], both
in pre-disaster and in post-disaster strategies [45]. In addition, Mazepus and van Leeuwen [54] find that the perception of distributive

4
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

Table 3
The identified philosophical approaches to judge the distributive justice of flood risk management strategies in the reviewed literature.

Philosophical Simplified definition Examples of references using

approaches it

Utilitarian
Libertarian/Elitist
Egalitarian/equality
Rawlsian/Prioritarian
Hierarchical
Proportional
Ability-to-pay equitya
Vertical equitya
a
The ability-to-pay and vertical approaches to equity are offered in a study focusing on the housing reconstruction in the aftermath of a disaster [44].
The greatest reduction of risk for the society as a whole per unit of resources used [36,37,41,49,50,53]
Those who pay get protected [37,41,50,53]
Everyone at risk gets the same level of protection, independent on their socio-economic [37,41,43,44,49,50,53]
characteristics
The ones the most in need or the most vulnerable get the most protection and help [39,49,50,53]
The protection of people is dependent on their position in the national society [43]
No individual person carries a disproportional burden even if it benefits the society as a whole [53]
The financial help is inversely proportional to the net income of the households [44]
As ability-to-pay approach but the richest households are excluded [44]

and procedural justice are correlated. However, Begg [37] and O’Hare and White [51] warn that if procedural justice does influence
distributive justice, the relationship is complex and not straightforward. Promoting local stakeholders’ involvement does not neces­
sarily lead to a fairer distribution. O’Hare and White [51] insist that participatory methods usually include certain privileged social
categories of people, the most vulnerable often being excluded because of various limitations (e.g. resources, abilities, inclination to
participate), so the unjust distribution continues. Begg [37] mentions that the inverse relationship of distributive and procedural
justice is also necessary: distributive justice is needed to promote and implement procedural justice through the allocation of resources
that guarantee the capacity for involvement in the decision-making processes.
What is just or unjust is not objective. Values, culture, and context are among the essential parameters that determine the fairness of
a strategy. For instance, Gourevitch et al. [36] develop equity-based utility functions and acknowledge that the weight of the equity
parameter should depend on what the society in question considers as fair.
Different justice philosophies can be brandished (see examples in Table 3) to justify the choices and present them as fair. Each
justice approach has a different definition of fairness in relation to both distributive and procedural justice (e.g. Refs. [41,50,53]). “If
FRM [Flood Risk Management] policies are to be considered equitable or ‘fair’, they will likely exemplify one of the […] philosophies
of justice” ([49]; p. 2). Different justice philosophies apply in different countries [37,41]. Marks et al. [43] explain that the applied
justice philosophies are related to the historical and cultural context. They underline that most studies of disaster justice focus on
Western Europe and thus offer philosophies of justice that fit liberal societies, but are not systematically applicable in other countries
such as Thailand. In addition, the diversity of justice philosophies is not only true at the international level, but also in national
contexts: “no country has one clear-cut concept of justice” ([41]; p. 144). Within the same country, different approaches can apply
depending on the type of flood (coastal, fluvial or pluvial) studied [50] or the type of strategy (flood defense, property protection,
insurance) studied [49]. There can be disagreement at the local level as well, between different individuals: “if equity or justice is a
concern, equity criteria or norms come into many colors, and decision-makers, invoking different ones, will typically disagree on which
solution is most equitable or just” ([44]; pp. 152–153).
Therefore, judging the fairness of a strategy is a complex enterprise according to the literature, and sometimes even impossible
[42]. There can be “some contradictory elements with regard to social justice and fairness” ([49]; p. 5) within a unique strategy.

3.1.1. Distributive justice: the allocation of benefits and burdens

Floods and their management reveal two important distributive issues: the risk is distributed unevenly, and the outcomes of the
management strategies can be as well. Both of them raise justice questions.
The literature shows that both the vulnerability and the exposure (which are the main components of a risk together with the
hazard as defined in the introduction) vary depending on places and people, which leads to an uneven distribution of risks. Sherwin
[47] gives an example of uneven exposure: people from ‘colored communities’ in the USA are more likely to be settled near hazardous
sites, increasing the risk of toxic leaks during flood events and thus the risk of health problems. This type of uneven exposure is
combined with uneven vulnerabilities. For example, suicide rates resulting from environmental risks are higher for the indigenous
communities in Vancouver, Canada, than for the rest of the population [48]. It is important to take into consideration that these
inequities in the distribution of risk are expected to grow, for instance since climate change impacts indigenous communities more
[48].
The variable exposures and vulnerabilities are linked to distributive injustices since some people benefit from the risk creation
while others have to face it [40]. Yumagulova [48] mentions that “disaster risk management processes rarely identify or quantify
which stakeholders bear the risks and which contribute to its construction” (p. 295). Decision-makers of risk management strategies
should include more considerations of the unjust distribution of risks [47]. Indeed, the second aspect of distributive justice is about the
allocation of benefits and burdens from the strategies implemented to handle flood risks.
Collins et al. [40] explain that social elites in Miami, USA, are more likely to live near the coast in order to benefit from coastal
amenities such as the view and access to the beaches, and thus also more likely to be exposed to coastal flood risk. This leads to a
distributive injustice, since the whole community is financing public flood risk management while the richest segment of the popu­
lation is the most at risk and the most exposed and thus benefits most from protective measures.
Various types of strategies raise distributive issues between different social groups, such as the allocation of flood protection
measures, the share of the costs, and the liability of damages [41]. One type of strategy, such as insurance, reveals several social issues

5
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

related to, for instance, the housing market and property values, the ability to file claims, the affordability of flood insurance, and the
impact on the economic situation of individual households [52]. Distributive justice concerns both short-term strategies (recovery after
a disaster) and longer-term ones (micro-credits allocation, skill-trainings) as shown by Swapan et al. [45].
In addition to social inequities, the literature describes spatial injustices, such as protecting the inner city at the expense of the
suburbs [43] and protecting urban areas that are often situated downstream at the expense of the upstream countryside [53]. Thaler
et al. [53] show that protecting downstream communities comes with heavy burdens for landowners of upstream lands.
Swapan et al. [45] demonstrate that the distribution of aid by the government and NGOs in pre- and post-disaster management in
Khulna City, Bangladesh, depends on various spatial and social aspects (socio-economic variables of households). They note that “there
is a strong positive relationship between the different types of supports received” (p. 177), so distributive injustice can be reinforced
automatically through the implementation of the strategies.
The fact that the strategies have uneven effects illustrates a need for trade-offs. A reason for this is the limited budget which for
instance forces the government to choose between the quantity and the quality of housing reconstruction after a disaster [44]. Another
reason is rooted in values. Prioritizing the protection of economic or fiscal assets comes at the cost of social or environmental concerns
[48]. When green spaces are erased in favor of factories, flood-related health effects increase because less water is absorbed by the
ground and because the risk of contamination by pollutants increases [47]. Marks et al. [43] show that the choice of protecting the
inner city instead of other parts where lower-income communities live during the 2011 Bangkok flood was afterward justified by the
government as the necessity to protect heritage buildings, economic assets, and the international reputation of Thailand.
These value choices can explain and be explained by some general societal patterns. Yumagulova [48] differentiates between
specific risk management, meaning planning for specific hazards like floods, and general resilience, which is the overall ability to
handle change. The author shows how both influence each other historically. For instance, because of the lack of protection against
floods, the indigenous communities of Vancouver, Canada, have accumulated a delay in general economic development, which in turn
impairs their capacity to face future floods. In line with this, O’Hare and White [51] call for a more general understanding of the root
causes of what they call flood disadvantage, including the general socio-economic policies that are usually treated as independent from
flood risk management.
As explained earlier, in order to judge the fairness of the distributive outcomes of a strategy, the definition of a justice approach is
needed. Several philosophies are encountered in the reviewed literature; an overview is presented in Table 3. There is no agreement on
what would be ‘the fairest way’.
Some of the studies describe the strategies and find which philosophy applies (e.g. Refs. [37,41,49,50]), while some others argue
for one approach being more appropriate than the others to promote equity, sometimes by clearly stating the preferences (e.g. [39])
and sometimes by focusing on one approach without explicitly describing it (e.g. Ref. [36]).
There is some fuzziness around the definition of each approach, and some overlap. For instance, the definition of egalitarianism by
Thaler and Hartmann [41] and Thaler et al. [53] seems closer to the description of the Rawlsian philosophy than the egalitarian one
proposed by Kaufmann et al. [50] and Penning-Rowsell et al. [49]. Another example: even though Gooley and Bakema [42] speak
about “equal distribution of different kinds of capacities and entitlements” (p. 163), they do offer a framework in order to redistribute
resources, knowledge, information, and services towards the most vulnerable communities, suggesting then a more Rawlsian approach
of justice. However, this Rawlsian approach could indeed bring equal opportunities to face disaster risk for different social groups. This
fuzziness can relate to the difference between equal opportunities and equal outcomes which are both parts of the definition of social
justice.
It is essential to keep in mind that the implementation of a strategy aiming at being fair under one approach can generate unex­
pected outcomes. For instance, Schilizzi and Azeem [44] show that the ability-to-pay allocation benefits the richest and poorest
households at the expense of the middle-income ones.
Marks et al.‘s study [43] demonstrates that different groups in society can call for different justice approaches, depending on their
situation and their needs. However, because of the power structure, some can implement their vision while others can only protest and
strive for a change. This introduces the role of procedural justice in flood risk management.

3.1.2. Procedural justice: who influences and chooses strategies

Various reasons can explain the unjust decision-making processes within flood risk management, from the historical exclusion of
some communities [48] and traditions [43], to preconceptions about some groups of people such as the poorest [47]. Methods and
tools used in the process such as traditional modeling and mapping techniques can also focus on some groups in the population,
excluding others [51].
However, for strategies such as a resettlement or relocation project to be successful, they need to include the perspective of the
community in question from the beginning of the decision process [47]. There is a need for a shift from a top-down approach to an
integrative one, which includes all concerned stakeholders such as those at risk and policy-makers, for instance to shape national
insurance programs [52].
An example of the importance of the participation of people at risk in the decision-making process is given by Yumagulova [48]:
indigenous communities have a different vision of sea-level rise protection measures that considers not only structural protection of
settlements but also the effects on biodiversity, the loss of food security, and the impacts on culture. However, a pure bottom-up
approach may not be the most adequate solution, because the most vulnerable communities may lack resources required to lead
and implement risk management strategies [37,42], or even participate in decision processes [51]. Gooley and Bakema [42] promote
bottom-linked governance, that mixes top-down and bottom-up approaches, in order to help communities to develop resilience by
themselves, by providing complementary resources. This supports the conclusions of Begg’s study [37] pointing out that for local

6
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

stakeholders to be able to participate in the process, they need to be supported with resources. Begg [37] and O’Hare and White [51]
note that the participation of local stakeholders can be a pretext for governments to transfer responsibility on their shoulders and make
them accept decisions instead of promoting real fairness.
Thus, there is no unique solution to promote procedural justice. But how does one judge the fairness of the process? Thaler and
Hartmann [41] name justice philosophies as grounds for distributive justice: utilitarianism (the process is considered as fair if based on
expert decision-making), libertarianism (if based on a market system), and egalitarianism (if there is a consensus on general protection
standards). However, since procedural justice is often analyzed with regard to how much local communities can influence public
policies that concern them, Begg [37] prefers Hunold and Young’s principles [56]: inclusive processes, involvement of participants at
each stage of the decision-making process, elimination of disparities, promotion of joint decision-making between participants, and
influence on the final decision.
As much as distributive justice, the fairness of decision-making processes is very hard to evaluate according to the literature. Thaler
et al.‘s study [53] gives a good example of this complexity when analyzing the attribution system for compensation of landowners
whose properties are designated as retention basins:
“from the perspective of equal treatment of citizens, the Dutch system scores higher on procedural justice. The Austrian
compensation scheme allows subjective criteria to influence the level of compensation, which results in distrust of the com­
munity. However, if we focus on the power aspect of procedural justice and the question of whether citizens have a genuine
opportunity to appeal to decisions that affect them, we could say that the Dutch system scores lower on procedural justice” (pp
111–112).

3.2. Why? Reasons to consider justice in flood risk management

The reviewed literature reveals three main reasons to consider justice in flood risk management: floods impact different social
groups unevenly, the interest of public authorities in equity influences societal development, and the perception of fairness matters.

3.2.1. Flood impacts are uneven

An essential characteristic of floods presented earlier is the uneven distribution of risks. The distribution is not only uneven
depending on exposure, but one unique flood event also does not impact everyone the same way. “The experiences of flooding are very
uneven–not just in terms of spatial exposure, but also regarding the ability of people to recover or to meaningfully engage in risk
agendas” ([51]; p. 385). Collins et al. [40] explain that since researchers have been integrating a vulnerability perspective in their
studies on risks, floods revealed themselves as one of the hazards with most differences in the ways they affect different people. The
uneven impact of a catastrophic event such as Hurricane Katarina is a good example [37,40]. Some communities (e.g. Ref. [48]) or
places (e.g. Ref. [42]) have indeed been shown to suffer more than others from floods: floods impact different communities unevenly
since some are more exposed and vulnerable [46–48,51].
For instance, the consequences of an event are proportionally uneven depending on the pre-disaster situation of the households:
owners of mobile homes are more affected than the owners of houses in proportion to the value of their property [36]. In addition, the
most vulnerable communities may not be able to afford insurance and therefore suffer more during the recovery process [47].
Furthermore, O’Hare and White [51] underline that already disadvantaged people become even more vulnerable after a flood event.
Since “disasters have a cumulative negative effect on the resilience of […] poorer communities” ([42]; p. 147), the uneven impacts of
floods reinforce themselves over time. O’Hare and White [51] confirm this reinforcement mechanism due to vicious circles of exposure
and vulnerability.
The uneven consequences may be invisible depending on the level of analysis. Montgomery and Chakraborty [46] demonstrate that
some communities such as ‘the Hispanic community’ are often taken as a whole while sub-categories of this population are unevenly
affected by flood hazards in Miami, USA. O’Hare and White [51] also warn that “the homogenising of populations at risk neglect the
personal, spatial and temporal vagaries of disadvantage and vulnerability” (p. 393).
Disasters often reveal inequalities that are embedded into the global economic and social system [42], highlighting the important
role of historical roots [48] and general public policies [51]. Since people have uneven capacities [51] and some lack the resources and
knowledge required to face floods, it is the role of societal actions to protect them [42,45]. To be more effective and efficient, the
strategies must take into account the socio-economic characteristics of the population in all the facets of risk management from disaster
preparedness to recovery processes [39]. Penning-Rowsell et al. [49] conclude their study by stating that “while we recognize that
flooding itself is not ‘fair’ […] movements in the policy arena that exacerbate rather than minimize unfairness would not seem to be a
sustainable or sensible way forward” (p. 6); and Thaler et al. [53] conclude theirs by pointing out that “including social justice in the
decision-making process is […] crucial to reduce future conflicts and to be more inclusive in flood risk management policy” (p. 112).

3.2.2. The interest of public authorities in equity influence societal development

According to the literature, there is a lack of fairness considerations by both policy-makers and researchers, for instance when it
comes to housing reconstruction [44]. The literature on justice within flood risk management is scarce according to Begg [37] and
Thaler and Hartmann [41]. Because “there is hardly any public debate” ([50]; p. 332) about it and the policy documents rarely discuss
it, the consideration of justice can be stuck in a traditional discourse, as in the Netherlands [50]. Yet, formal institutions such as public
authorities should acknowledge the need for justice, since “communities can only problem-solve when their leaders recognize that
there is a problem” ([47]; p. 300), and the legitimacy of public strategies depends on an open and inclusive debate about it in order to
strengthen public support [50]. Thus the interest of public authorities in justice matters, especially since policies and strategies can
reinforce injustice [51] and “policy initiatives in one area will affect vulnerability in another” (p. 389).

7
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

Justice within flood management is a concern more and more prominent for public authorities. It has started in the USA with the
observation of the uneven consequences of Hurricane Katarina in 2005 [37,40] and Sherwin [47] mentions that the Supreme Court in
the USA once stated that the Fifth Amendment should enforce fairness and justice by avoiding “some people alone to bear public
burdens” (p. 295). In Europe, the institutional frameworks encourage equity considerations [37,41,50] through the European Floods
Directive.
Since institutional reforms of flood risk management are good opportunities to consider justice issues [46,49], public authorities
can initiate change. It is complicated to consider all social justice aspects when reforming national risk management policies, as shown
by Shively [52] regarding the USA flood insurance program. However, the study concludes by stating that a reform, even if it has some
negative effects on social justice, is better than no reform at all since the lack of solvability would lead to a radical stop of the insurance
program. In that case, the negative effects on social justice would be worse. Thus, considerations of equity at the level of public au­
thorities can change societal development.

3.2.3. Perception of fairness matters

The perception of fairness is not an objective measure of fairness itself since the perception of distributive justice depends on the
comparison of a personal situation to the situation of other people [54]. Despite this, several studies show that the perception itself
matters. Perceptions of justice have repercussions on behaviors [38,55], individual wellbeing [38], and the legitimacy of governments
[43,54]. “Fairness matters […] because among other things, it affects intentions, behaviors, and the legitimacy of state-society re­
lations” ([38]; p. 1080).
Individuals have a higher willingness to supplement public flood management with private complementary measures if they
perceive the public management as fair [38], so their behavior is impacted by their perception of fairness. In addition, “climate justice
perception could affect the willingness to act upon climate action plans and implementation” ([55]; p. 47), including risk management.
During the recovery process after a flood, both perceived distributive and procedural justice, together with the personal outcome of
the aid, impact the perceived legitimacy of the state as seen by individuals [54]. Marks et al. [43] show that the lower income
communities who were the most negatively impacted by the management of the 2011 flood in Bangkok, Thailand, perceived the
strategy aiming at protecting the inner city as unfair and it led to several protests. Thus, perceptions of injustice can incite protest
against the power in place. Therefore, “when preparing policies for how to respond to disasters, governments might not just plan the
distribution of aid, but also attend if this distribution satisfies citizens’ concerns about fairness” ([54]; p. 634).

3.3. What? The multiple dimensions of justice for sustainability are unevenly addressed
The contribution to sustainability is not directly mentioned as a main justification for justice considerations within flood risk
management. This section identifies in the literature the different dimensions of justice promoting the contribution of societal risk
management to sustainability: social, ecological, spatial, and temporal issues.
As the previous results have shown, the literature focuses on social (e.g. Refs. [38,44,52]) and spatial (e.g. Refs. [36,53]) con­
siderations, most of the time together (e.g. Refs. [43,45,46]) since specific places often host specific social groups. Spatial concerns
have been discussed in the literature for some time [51]. They are related to the unevenness of flood-related damage in different places,
or to the spatial targeting of strategies such as the creation of retention basins (see Ref. [53]). However, as pointed out in the intro­
duction, there is also a need for considerations of temporal and ecological issues to address additional facets of sustainability.
Yumagulova’s work [48] is based on the concept of “riskscapes”, which takes into consideration social and ecological impact
repartition in spatial and temporal scales. In this aspect, it is the only document in this review that takes into account the four di­
mensions essential to promote sustainability. The author writes that “planning for resilience requires conceiving the social-ecological
system as integrated and interdependent over space and time” (p. 295).
In addition, temporal concerns appear in some of the reviewed literature, often mentioned as important to take into consideration
in the introduction: justice considerations should include the impacts on future generations [41], managing floods is both about risks
today and about risks in the future [49], and the spatio-temporal distribution of benefits and burdens is important to take into
consideration in order to design effective and socially just strategies [39]. However, these issues are not elaborated further in the
analyses. Most of the time, temporal concerns are reduced to statistical evaluation of the risk, for instance in terms of ‘100-years events’
[36,46,52], or limited to the capacity of communities to continue the recovery and resilience-building processes after the end of the
post-disaster aids [42]. One notable exception is the discussion by O’Hare and White [51] which clearly argues for the importance of
spatio-temporal dynamics of flood disadvantage (through exposure, sensitivity, and general vulnerability): future exposure is evolving
because of climate change and urbanization for instance. They mention the importance of intergenerational justice and summarize:
“the dynamic nature of flood risk intersects with the dynamic nature of disadvantage” (p. 392).
Another way of considering temporal issues in the reviewed literature is indirect and relates to the promotion of societal reforms as
a contribution to long-term risk management: reducing general inequalities [52], build-back-better after a disaster [44], micro-credits
and training skills for reducing vulnerability [45]. Swapan et al. [45] point out that in Bangladesh, the government is more in charge of
short-term recovery processes in post-disaster situations, while NGOs facilitate longer-term programs. Finally, Yumagulova [48] looks
at the temporal dimension of uneven distribution of risks in a retrospective way, as well as how this unevenness is linked with pro­
cedural issues: digging into history to explain the current situation of indigenous communities in Vancouver, Canada. The author
argues that colonialism has been the main reason explaining the difference of treatments between the indigenous communities and the
‘white’ settlements concerning flood risks, because of various factors including the spatial repartition of the reserves and the spatial
choices of flood protection building. This statement supports societal reforms in order to promote long-term considerations of justice.
Ecological concerns are scarcer in the literature. Shively [52], looking at the impact of climate change on risk perception, mentions

8
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

the importance of taking into consideration non-human concerns, and the coupled impacts of floods on both human and non-human
systems. Yumagulova [48] does mention several times the ecological issues resulting from flood management, both because of the
traditional and cultural values of nature for indigenous communities, but also its intrinsic value. It is the only study underling this
aspect in the reviewed literature.
For instance, Gourevitch et al. [36] study nature restoration undertaken to reduce flood risk. Yet, the equity-weighted utility
function they develop focuses on social equity between property owners and the cost of nature restoration in different places. They
acknowledge that the benefits of nature restoration are more global and include various ecosystem services that are not taken into
account in their mathematical optimization. Taking ecological issues into consideration for themselves and not only for human benefit
is a challenge. Pahl-Wostl, Becker, Knieper, and Sendzimir’s study [57]; referred to in Begg [37]; gives an example in which German
decision-makers worked together with an NGO to promote a flood risk management strategy that also benefits nature restoration,
suggesting that the consideration for ecological justice is possible.
To conclude, if social and spatial issues related to the contribution of justice to sustainability are developed in the literature, there
are very few justice concerns about temporal issues and even less about ecological ones within flood risk management. This is
identified as a knowledge gap for the contribution of flood risk management to sustainability.

4. Discussion
4.1. The nexus flood risk management and justice is diverse
The literature establishes clear reasons to consider justice in flood risk management. Yet, in spite of an agreement on the impor­
tance of fairness, the results show diversities in many aspects of justice considerations within flood risk management. These involve
justice concepts, places, types of strategies, and frameworks.
First of all, an important diversity of justice concepts is represented. This diversity shows the complexity of justice considerations
that are relevant for disaster management (as noted by Lukasiewicz [23] who identifies not less than 19 relevant approaches to justice
in their non-exhaustive typology) and is not necessarily problematic per se. Indeed, Johnson et al. [28] also identify pluralism as one
justice philosophy applicable in the context of flood risk management in England. It gathers different justice philosophies together
depending on the strategies in order to provide a coherent understanding of fairness within a specific place. The pluralistic vision
described by Johnson et al. [28] includes both distributive and procedural justice. Their approach mixes utilitarian criteria as
background for flood risk management in general, equalitarian criteria for procedural justice and Rawlsian criteria for distributive
justice. The more recent considerations shown in the results section reveal that the choice of philosophical approach depends on the
place, the type of flood, and the type of strategies. Thus, within a unique country, different criteria apply which also suggests a
pluralistic vision. The application of the different justice approaches found in this review focus on distributive and procedural justice.
The literature on justice often considers also a third branch: justice as recognition. Recognitional justice is the acknowledgment of the
differences between groups of people that determine the roots of distributive injustice in a society [20]. If some documents of the
literature review could contribute to the recognition of these differences in the face of flood risks, none discuss the concept and the
implications of recognitional justice deeply except for O’Hare and White [51] who argue for the recognition of global inequitable
patterns due to broad institutional settings. Further research could investigate more thoroughly the effects of recognitional justice on
flood risk management.
Secondly, the places investigated in the literature on justice related to flood risks are diverse. The spatial scale varies depending on
the studies and goes from international comparisons to local investigations. The place of investigation is an essential variable that
influences the understanding of fairness through specific historical and cultural contexts. The literature presents studies about justice
in different countries: North America, Europe, and South-East Asia. Even though the meaning of justice varies among these places, it is
clear that fairness is a concern wherever flood risk occurs. The inevitability of justice as an aspect of flood risk could be explained by the
fact that it is impossible to protect everyone and the fact that floods are not fair per se. However, except for a few cases in South-East
Asia, most of the selected literature focuses on the so-called ‘Global North’. This could reflect a more general focus of scientific in­
vestigations of flood governance on those territories since it is in line with what Matczak and Hegger [27] find in their literature review
of flood resilience through governance strategies. Further investigations of justice in flood risk management could look at other regions
in the world such as Africa, Central and South America, and Oceania.
Thirdly, various types of strategies are studied: the reviewed literature acknowledges a wide range of possible applications of
justice concerns within all aspects of flood risk management. It includes preventive strategies as much as recovery ones and insurances.
This diversity mirrors the complexity of flood risk management. Matczak and Hegger [27] explain that recently the focus has moved
towards flood resilience with three types of capacities to consider: the capacity to resist, the capacity to absorb and recover, and the
capacity to adapt and transform. They note that enhancing these capacities requires various governance strategies and the diversity of
flood risk management strategies has been shown to generally contribute to flood resilience. Therefore the results that show a variety
of settings in which justice can be considered mean that fairness is important within all types of strategies that increase flood resilience.
Further investigations could look at the difference in efficiency in terms of increasing flood resilience between strategies that take into
consideration justice and those that do not.
These diversities of justice concepts, places, and types of strategies are reflected in the diversity of frameworks used for studying
justice within flood risk management. The ones identified in the literature comprise social, environmental, climate, and disaster
justice. Each framework brings different perspectives on justice within flood risk management, however none of them are especially
focusing on the contribution of risk management to sustainability. Social justice focuses on equity between living people. Environ­
mental justice, which is the most encountered framework in this review, usually considers targeted populations unwillingly highly

9
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

Fig. 1. Flood risk justice: an analytical framework mapping out the multidimensionality of justice considerations within flood risk management for its contribution to
sustainability.

exposed to risks. Climate justice looks at people exposed to climate-related risks while not having contributed much to climate change.
Finally, disaster justice involves a more holistic approach at the nexus of justice and disaster management, without specifically
considering its contribution to sustainability. Thus there is no agreement on which justice framework to use in societal risk man­
agement and the diversity of justice considerations within flood risk management reflects the fact that there are different interests at
stake and that the normative question of the hierarchy of these interests should be raised, as it has been done in climate adaptation
policies for instance (see Ref. [58]). The following part focuses on putting sustainability at the center of societal interests, and therefore
suggests a flood risk justice analytical framework that helps to consider justice dimensions of sustainability in the context of flood risk
management.
In spite of the diversities of types of justice, places, strategies, and frameworks, the results show that more issues need to be
addressed for flood risk management to contribute to sustainability through justice, according to the definition of sustainability
discussed in the introduction. Social and spatial issues related to equity are the most studied, while the results reveal a clear gap in the
domains of ecological and temporal concerns. The timid acknowledgments in the literature of the importance of temporal concerns
could be taken further. For example, Finucane, Acosta, Wicker, and Whipkey [59] discuss the possibility to look at disaster recovery as
a means of long-term reduction of inequities. Establishing different scenarios for the future is an opportunity to take equity into
consideration in the long term as suggested by Daniels, Grim, and Morgan [60] in the case of flood management in Houston, USA.
Concerning ecological issues, they do not only relate to direct ecological benefits to humans but also benefits to the natural systems
themselves. Dekker and Fantini [61] show that the interpretation of justice in a case of nature-based solution for flood control needs to
take into account the implications for both humans and non-humans. In a more general sense, the climate crisis is increasingly
revealing the interconnections between humans and non-humans and thus the importance to consider all aspects of the natural world
[62]. To address the identified gaps, the following section presents a new framework that specifically considers justice within flood risk
management in order to contribute to sustainability through its four dimensions: social, ecological, spatial, and temporal.

4.2. Flood risk justice: a framework to consider the contribution of flood risk management to sustainability through justice
Inspired by the findings about justice understanding within flood risk management, a framework called flood risk justice is pro­
posed. Flood risk justice takes into consideration both distributive and procedural issues, under the four dimensions (social, ecological,
spatial, temporal) identified in the introduction (see Fig. 1).
Flood risk justice is anchored in existing discussions on different aspects of justice, such as social, ecological, and multispecies
justice (left part of Fig. 1). Social risk justice is about fairness issues between different groups of people. Ecological risk justice is about
fairness between humans and non-human entities, as well as between different non-human entities. Social risk justice and ecological
risk justice consider both how the risk affects different human and non-human interests (distributive justice) and how the strategy
implemented to handle the risk affects them (both distributive and procedural justice), as shown in the middle of Fig. 1. These issues
related to humans and non-humans are analyzed on different spatio-temporal scales (right part of Fig. 1). This analysis reflects the area
of spatial risk justice, meaning the fairness between different places, and temporal risk justice which is about fairness between living
entities now and in the future.
Flood risk justice is a theoretical and practical tool to think justice in its complexity related to flood risk management in a sus­
tainable development context and to enable risk managers, policy-makers, researchers, and evaluators to discuss the fairness of past,
current, and future strategies in the light of various aspects. There is still a need to determine what is fair or not (values and justice
philosophies) but it allows for a larger thinking framework, taking into consideration the complexity of the matter and encouraging
system thinking concerning the contribution of justice to sustainability. Future investigations of the fairness of specific risk man­
agement strategies should consider justice as a whole, and include the different dimensions in the frame of sustainability. Otherwise,
the effort to remedy one instance of injustice may create or reinforce another one, through, for instance, a risk transfer. A risk transfer
can happen between two different times (a risk transferred to the future), two places (a risk transferred spatially), two types of risks
(the reduction of one risk increases another), two targets (for example, from some people to others or from humans to non-humans). In
all these cases, there can be impacts on sustainability.
As pointed out in the results, decisions about strategies have to be made rather urgently because of the increasing unevenness of
flood consequences and increasing complexity of the management. The flood risk justice framework can be transcribed into practical

10
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

Table 4
Non-exhaustive checklist for flood risk managers based on the flood risk justice framework.

Dimensions Distributive justice Procedural justice

Benefits Burdens

Social Direct: Who is the strategy aiming to protect? Direct: Who pays for the strategy
What are their socio-economic and cultural implementation?
characteristics? Who gets negatively impacted by the
Indirect: Are there other people who will benefit strategy? (e.g. whose properties are
from the strategy who are not targeted? E.g. classified as retention basins)?
people who could afford to protect themselves but Indirect: What other policies are not
get the benefits at a reduced cost? prioritized in the budget?
Who is exposed to other risks (e.g.
different types of floods) that are not
covered by the strategy?
Is there a risk transfer? To the same
people or others?
Ecological Are the impacts on nature taken into consideration? How (e.g. ecological services)? Will
nature benefit or be negatively impacted by the strategy? Today and in the future (e.g.
pollution, emissions that contribute to climate change…)?
Is nature directly impacted by the strategy because targeted (e.g. nature-based solution,
restoration…)?
Spatial What places will benefit from the strategy? How? Direct: What places will be negatively
impacted by the strategy?
What are the characteristics of the
living entities there (e.g. people,
trees, animals…)?
Indirect: What places are excluded
from the strategy?
Is there a risk transfer from one place
to another?
Is there a particular competition between these places? Are there historical injustices that
affect the relationship between them?
Temporal Does the strategy reduce risks only today or also in What are the expected long-term
the future? negative externalities from the
strategy?
Is there a risk transfer from today to
the future?
What are the long-term impacts of the strategy? Mostly positive or negative? On people and
on nature?
How will the strategy influence the capacity for future strategies to be put in place (e.g. path
dependency)?
Are the ones who are directly impacted by the
strategy listened to? Do they have the power to
influence the decision? How? Do they have the
resources to participate in the decision process? Are
different types of knowledge from different people
considered?
How are the interests of non-human entities taken
into consideration during the decision process? Are
there any representatives (e.g. NGOs) for their
interests?
Where is the decision process taking place
compared to the targeted area of the
implementation of the strategy (e.g. are the
decision-makers living in an urban area while the
strategy aims at protecting countryside territories)?
Are the inhabitants of the targeted place included
in the decision process? How?
How are the interests of future generations and
future non-human entities taken into
considerations during the decision process? Do we
listen to children? Do they have any power to
influence the decision?
Are there representatives of the interests of future
generations not born yet?

tools and enables managers to create checklists such as the matrix presented in Table 4 in order to frame the discussions.
Table 4 underlines various issues raised by justice considerations within flood risk management. When working on justice while
deciding on a strategy, there is a need for trade-offs. Flood risk justice allows a broader understanding and promotes transparency
regarding these trade-offs through considerations of several aspects of fairness.
These considerations of different facets of justice within flood risk management may be applicable for other societal risks. After
screening the literature that was not selected for in-depth reading because it did not focus on floods but that appeared in the infor­
mation retrieval, the issues related to justice consideration in other types of risks seem to be similar to the ones related to floods:
landslides [63], wildfires [64,65], mountain hazards [66], air pollutants [67], industrial hazards [68], disasters in general [69].
Further elaborations of the flood risk justice framework could broaden its applicability to other societal risks.

5. Conclusion
This paper argues that risk management, sustainability, and justice are three imbricated concepts and that risk management can
contribute to sustainability through justice. After reviewing the literature to investigate justice considerations within flood risk
management, it can be concluded that the understanding of justice is very broad and does not follow any unique definition. It com­
prises distributive issues of risks and strategies, as well as procedural issues for decision-making. To judge the fairness of flood risk
management, the application of justice philosophies and values, themselves context-dependent, is necessary. They vary depending on
the place, the type of flood, and the type of strategy analyzed. Despite these difficulties, justice should be a concern for flood risk
managers because of three reasons that were identified in the literature: one flood can impact people unevenly, the interest of public
authorities in justice influences societal development, and the perception of fairness matters at both the individual and the collective
levels. However, sustainability does not appear in the literature as an essential reason to consider justice in flood risk management. It
turns out that some aspects of sustainability are tackled anyway: the social and spatial issues. Yet the ecological and temporal di­
mensions of sustainability remain largely missing in the literature focusing on justice. The discussion of the paper has first detailed
several diversities related to justice in flood risk management. Indeed, justice concepts, places of investigation, and types of strategies

11
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

considered in the literature are diverse. Even if it is not problematic per se, several ideas for further investigation have been suggested.
In addition, this diversity is mirrored by the various frameworks used to analyze justice within flood risk management: social justice,
environmental justice, climate justice, and disaster justice. None of them focus on the contribution to sustainability, and therefore a
new framework is developed: flood risk justice. It takes into consideration both distributive and procedural justice under the four
dimensions that have been identified as essential for sustainability: social, ecological, spatial, and temporal. Further elaboration of the
framework could extend its applicability to other societal risks.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the four anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments and advice.

Appendix A. Characteristics of the selected documents for the literature review

Reference (in Flood risk management focus Type of justice Main Claimed justice Place of the case
alphabetical order) addressed dimensions framework studies
studied

[38] Individual adaptive behavior following government Distributive Social Environmental United
intervention to manage flood risk Procedural justice Kingdom
Social justice Ireland
[37] Participative approaches to flood risk management Procedural Social Environmental England
decision-making Distributive Spatial justice Germany
The
Netherlands
[39] Place-based relative social vulnerability to floods Distributive Social Environmental Canada
Spatial Justice
[55] Effective risk communication for local support and Distributive Spatial Climate justice USA
implementation of strategies Social
[40] Relationship between social vulnerability and flood Distributive Spatial Environmental USA
exposure Social justice
[42] Governance framework of disaster risk management Procedural Social Environmental Bangladesh
Distributive justice
[36] Spatial targeting of floodplain restoration Distributive Spatial – USA
Social
[50] Costs and responsibilities of pre-emptive risk Distributive Spatial – The
management and post-event recovery for coastal, Social Netherlands
fluvial and pluvial flood risks
[43] Spatially targeted floods, their decision-processes Distributive Spatial Disaster justice Thailand
and their influences on protests Procedural Social
[54] Government legitimacy after disaster management Distributive Social – The
Procedural Netherlands
France
Poland
Ukraine
Russia
[46] Social vulnerability to coastal and inland floods Distributive Social Environmental USA
Spatial justice
[51] Flood disadvantages in general Distributive Social Flood disadvantage –
Procedural Spatial Environmental
Recognitional Temporal justice
[49] Flood defense, property level protection and flood Distributive Social Social justice United
insurance Kingdom
[44] Housing reconstruction following flood disaster Distributive Social Disaster justice Pakistan
[47] Impacts of floods and access to recovery depending Distributive Social Environmental USA
on income and possible preventive measures Procedural Spatial justice
[52] Flood insurance program Distributive Social Social justice USA
Procedural
[45] Spatial targeting of disaster-related support Distributive Social Disaster justice Bangladesh
Spatial
Temporal
[41] Allocation of flood protection measures, the process Distributive Social – England
of allocation and share of costs for flood protection Procedural Spatial The
Netherlands
(continued on next page)

12
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

(continued )

Reference (in Flood risk management focus Type of justice Main Claimed justice Place of the case
alphabetical order) addressed dimensions framework studies
studied

Germany
Austria
[53] Spatial flood risk reduction measures and the Distributive Spatial Environmental Austria
compensations of private landowners Procedural Social justice The
Climate justice Netherlands
[48] Historic creation of riskscapes and impacts of sea- Procedural Social – Canada
level rise on Indigenous communities Distributive Spatial
Temporal

References
[1] UN Climate Change Secretariat, Opportunities and Options for Integrating Climate Change Adaptation with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, Technical paper, United Nations Climate Change Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2017.
[2] I. Kelman, J.C. Gaillard, J. Mercer, Climate change’s role in disaster risk reduction’s future: beyond vulnerability and resilience, Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 6 (1)
(2015) 21–27, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-015-0038-5.
[3] UNDRR, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2019, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019, https://doi.
org/10.18356/f4ae4888-en.
[4] IPCC, Summary for policymakers, in: C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.
C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, L.L. White (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (United Kingdom) & New York (USA), 2014, pp. 1–32.
[5] E. Sainz de Murieta, I. Galarraga, M. Olazabal, How well do climate adaptation policies align with risk-based approaches? An assessment framework for cities,
Cities 109 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.103018.
[6] SRA, Society for Risk Analysis Glossary, 2018. Retrieved from, https://www.sra.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SRA-Glossary-FINAL.pdf. (Accessed 22 May
2021).
[7] T. Aven, Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253 (2016) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2015.12.023.
[8] G. Walker, E. Shove, Ambivalence, sustainability and the governance of socio-technical transitions, J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 9 (3–4) (2007) 213–225, https://doi.
org/10.1080/15239080701622840.
[9] A. Martinuzzi, W. Meyer, Evaluating sustainable development in a global society, in: R. Stockmann, W. Meyer (Eds.), The Future of Evaluation: Global Trends,
New Challenges, Shared Perspectives, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, pp. 81–94.
[10] J. Agyeman, Introducing Just Sustainabilities: Policy, Planning, and Practice, Zed Books, London (UK) & New York (USA), 2013.
[11] M. Reisch, Defining social justice in a socially unjust world, Fam. Soc. 83 (4) (2002) 343–354, https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.17.
[12] K.M. Weigert, Social justice: historical and theoretical considerations, in: second ed., in: J.D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral
Sciences, vol. 22, Elsevier, Oxford, 2015, pp. 397–400, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32081-5.
[13] International Forum for Social Development, in: U. Nations (Ed.), Social Justice in an Open World: the Role of the United Nations, United Nations, Departement
of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, New York, 2006, https://doi.org/10.18356/56bfb5b6-en.
[14] S. Faets, N. Tamoudi, M. Reder, Fresh perspectives on intergenerational justice: comments on social criticism, temporality, and future narratives, in: Praktische
Philosophie in Globaler Perspektive/Practical Philosophy in a Global Perspective (Jahr Buch/Year Book) vol. 2, Verlag Karl Alber, Munich, Germany, 2018,
pp. 279–304.
[15] R.B. Howarth, Intergenerational justice, in: J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford
University Press, Oxford (UK), 2012, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0023.
[16] P. Tschakert, D. Schlosberg, D. Celermajer, L. Rickards, C. Winter, M. Thaler, B. Verlie, Multispecies justice: climate-just futures with, for and beyond humans,
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. : Clim. Change 12 (e699) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.699.
[17] ATD Quart Monde, Justice, climat : même combat, Revue Quart Monde 3 (250) (2019) 3–41. Montreuil (France): Éditions Quart Monde.
[18] M.E.M. da Silveira, S.B. de S Thiago, L.P.C. Ribeiro, A.C.M. da Silveira, J.B.S.O. de Andrade Guerra, J. Garcia, S.A. da Silva, Environmental justice and climate
change adaptation in the context of risk society, in: F. Alves, et al. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Climate Adaptation, Climate Change Management: Springer
Nature, 2018, pp. 251–268, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72874-2_15.
[19] B. van Bavel, D. Curtis, J. Dijkman, M. Hannaford, M. de Keyzer, E. van Onacker, T. Soens, Disasters and History: the Vulnerability and Resilience of Past
Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK), 2020, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569743.
[20] D. Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature, Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), 2007, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
oso/9780199286294.001.0001.
[21] G. Walker, Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics, Routledge, Oxford (UK), 2012, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203610671.
[22] M. Meikle, J. Wilson, T. Jafry, Climate justice: between mammon and mother Earth, Int. J. Clim. Change Strat. Manag. 8 (4) (2016) 488–504, https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJCCSM-06-2015-0089.
[23] A. Lukasiewicz, The emerging imperative of disaster justice, in: A. Lukasiewicz, C. Baldwin (Eds.), Natural Hazards and Disaster Justice: Challenges for Australia
and its Neighbours, Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, 2020, pp. 3–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0466-2_1.
[24] CRED, Human Cost of Disasters (2000-2019), CRED Crunch, 2020, p. 61.
[25] CRED, Disasters 2018: Year in Review, CRED Crunch, 2019, p. 54.
[26] G. Walker, K. Burningham, Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental justice: evidence and evaluation of inequality in a UK context, Crit. Soc. Pol. 31 (2)
(2011) 216–240, https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018310396149.
[27] P. Matczak, D. Hegger, Improving flood resilience through governance strategies: gauging the state of the art, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. : Water 8 (4) (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1532.
[28] C. Johnson, E. Penning-Rowsell, D. Parker, Natural and imposed injustices: the challenges in implementing ’fair’ flood risk management policy in England,
Geogr. J. 173 (4) (2007) 374–390, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00256.x.
[29] S.J. Priest, C. Suykens, H.F.M.W. van Rijswick, T. Schellenberger, S. Goytia, Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Homewood, The European Union approach to flood risk
management and improving societal resilience: lessons from the implementation of the Floods Directive in six European countries, Ecol. Soc. 21 (4:50) (2016),
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08913-210450.
[30] Z. Munn, M.D.J. Peters, C. Stern, C. Tufanaru, A. McArthur, E. Aromataris, Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a
systematic or scoping review approach, BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18 (143) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.

13
M. de Goër de Herve International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 69 (2022) 102745

[31] Elsevier, Scopus: Content Coverage Guide, 2020. Retrieved from, https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/Scopus_ContentCoverage_
Guide_WEB.pdf [2021-05-22.
[32] Clarivate, Web of Science: List of Subject Classifications for All Databases, 2018. Retrieved from, https://support.clarivate.com/
ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Web-of-Science-List-of-Subject-Classifications-for-All-Databases?language=en_US. (Accessed 22 May 2021).
[33] C.T. Emrich, E. Tate, S.E. Larson, Y. Zhou, Measuring social equity in flood recovery funding, Environ. Hazards 19 (3) (2020) 228–250, https://doi.org/
10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578.
[34] C.E. Muñoz, E. Tate, Unequal recovery? Federal resource distribution after a midwest flood disaster, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 13 (5) (2016), https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph13050507.
[35] C. Wagner, B.B. Kawulich, M. Garner, Doing Social Research : A Global Context, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Berkshire (UK), 2012.
[36] J.D. Gourevitch, N.K. Singh, J. Minot, K.B. Raub, D.M. Rizzo, B.C. Wemple, T.H. Ricketts, Spatial targeting of floodplain restoration to equitably mitigate flood
risk, Global Environ. Change 61 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102050.
[37] C. Begg, Power, responsibility and justice: a review of local stakeholder participation in European flood risk management, Local Environ. 23 (4) (2018)
383–397, https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1422119.
[38] W.N. Adger, T. Quinn, I. Lorenzoni, C. Murphy, Sharing the pain: perceptions of fairness affect private and public response to hazards, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
106 (5) (2016) 1079–1096, https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1182005.
[39] L. Chakraborty, H. Rus, D. Henstra, J. Thistlethwaite, D. Scott, A place-based socioeconomic status index: measuring social vulnerability to flood hazards in the
context of environmental justice, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 43 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101394.
[40] T.W. Collins, S.E. Grineski, J. Chakraborty, Environmental injustice and flood risk: a conceptual model and case comparison of metropolitan Miami and
Houston, USA, Reg. Environ. Change 18 (2018) 311–323, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1121-9.
[41] T. Thaler, T. Hartmann, Justice and flood risk management: reflecting on different approaches to distribute and allocate flood risk management in Europe, Nat.
Hazards 83 (2016) 129–147, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2305-1.
[42] K. Gooley, M.M. Bakema, The Resiliency Web - a bottom-linked governance model for resilience and environmental justice in the context of disasters, in: B.R.E.-
M. Trell, M.M. Bakema, B. van Hoven (Eds.), Governing for Resilience in Vulnerable Places, Routledge, Oxford (UK) & New York (USA), 2017, pp. 146–167,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315103761.
[43] D. Marks, J. Connell, F. Ferrara, Contested notions of disaster justice during the 2011 Bangkok floods: unequal risk, unrest and claims to the city, Asia Pac.
Viewp. 61 (1) (2020) 19–36, https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12250.
[44] S. Schilizzi, M.M. Azeem, How to Be fair in prioritizing support in the aftermath of disasters: Pakistan’s housing reconstruction challenges following the 2010
flood disaster, in: A. Lukasiewicz, C. Baldwin (Eds.), Natural Hazards and Disaster Justice: Challenges for Australia and its Neighbours, Palgrave Macmillan,
Singapore, 2020, pp. 151–166, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0466-2_8.
[45] M.S.H. Swapan, M. Ashikuzzaman, M.S. Iftekhar, Equitable Access to formal disaster management programmes: experience of residents of urban informal
settlements in Bangladesh, in: A. Lukasiewicz, C. Baldwin (Eds.), Natural Hazards and Disaster Justice: Challenges for Australia and its Neighbours, Palgrave
Macmillan, Singapore, 2020, pp. 169–183, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0466-2_9.
[46] M.C. Montgomery, J. Chakraborty, Assessing the environmental justice consequences of flood risk: a case study in Miami, Florida, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015),
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095010.
[47] B. Sherwin, After the storm: the importance of acknowledging environmental justice in sustainable development and disaster preparedness, Duke Environ. Law
Pol. Forum 29 (2) (2019) 273–300.
[48] L. Yumagulova, Disrupting the riskscapes of inequities: a case study of planning for resilience in Canada’s Metro Vancouver region, Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 13
(2020) 293–318, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsaa029.
[49] E.C. Penning-Rowsell, S.J. Priest, D. King, Flood risk management and ’fairness’: aspirations and reality, in: Paper Presented at the E3S Web of Conferences 7,
2016, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160724001.
[50] M. Kaufmann, S.J. Priest, P. Leroy, The undebated issue of justice: silent discourses in Dutch flood risk management, Reg. Environ. Change 18 (2018) 325–337,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1086-0.
[51] P. O’Hare, I. White, Beyond ‘just’ flood risk management: the potential for—and limits to—alleviating flood disadvantage, Reg. Environ. Change 18 (2) (2018)
385–396, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1216-3.
[52] D. Shively, Flood risk management in the USA: implications of National Flood Insurance Program changes for social justice, Reg. Environ. Change 17 (2017)
1663–1672, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1127-3.
[53] T. Thaler, N. Doorn, T. Hartmann, Justice of compensation for spatial flood risk management – comparing the flexible Austrian and the structured Dutch
approach, Erde 151 (2–3) (2020) 104–115, https://doi.org/10.12854/erde-2020-467.
[54] H. Mazepus, F. van Leeuwen, Fairness matters when responding to disasters: an experimental study of government legitimacy, Governance 33 (2020) 621–637,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12440.
[55] C. Cheng, J.Y. Tsai, Y.C.E. Yang, R. Esselman, M. Kalcic, X. Xu, P. Mohai, Risk communication and climate justice planning: a case of Michigan’s Huron river
Watershed, Urban Plann. 2 (4) (2017) 34–50, https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v2i4.1045.
[56] C. Hunold, I.M. Young, Justice, democracy, and hazardous siting, Polit. Stud. 46 (1998) 82–95, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00131.
[57] C. Pahl-Wostl, G. Becker, C. Knieper, J. Sendzimir, How multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: a comparative case study analysis
on flood management, Ecol. Soc. 18 (4:58) (2013), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05779-180458.
[58] P.P.J. Driessen, H.F.M.W. Van Rijswick, Normative aspects of climate adaptation policies, Clim. Law 2 (4) (2011) 559–581, https://doi.org/10.3233/CL-2011-
051.
[59] M.L. Finucane, J. Acosta, A. Wicker, K. Whipkey, Short-term solutions to a long-term challenge: rethinking disaster recovery planning to reduce vulnerabilities
and inequities, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 17 (482) (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020482.
[60] K. Daniels, T. Grim, T. Morgan, Using foresight to explore the impacts of flooding in Houston on health, poverty, and equity out to 2050, Futures 131 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102754.
[61] I. Dekker, E. Fantini, Nature based solution for flood control in The Netherlands. Socialising water or naturifying society? Res. Ital. Soc. 61 (2) (2020) 253–278,
https://doi.org/10.1423/97800.
[62] P. Tschakert, More-than-human solidarity and multispecies justice in the climate crisis, Environ. Polit. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1080/
09644016.2020.1853448.
[63] L. Mendes Barbosa, G. Walker, Epistemic injustice, risk mapping and climatic events: analysing epistemic resistance in the context of favela removal in Rio de
Janeiro, Geograph. Helv. 75 (2020) 381–391, https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-75-381-2020.
[64] M.D.O. Adams, S. Charnley, The environmental justice implications of managing hazardous fuels on federal forest lands, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 110 (6) (2020)
1907–1935, https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1727307.
[65] S.D. Wong, J.C. Broader, S.A. Shaheen, Can sharing economy platforms increase social equity for vulnerable populations in disaster response and relief? A case
study of the 2017 and 2018 California wildfires, Transport. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 5 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100131.
[66] T. Thaler, A. Zischg, M. Keiler, S. Fuchs, Allocation of risk and benefits—distributional justices in mountain hazard management, Reg. Environ. Change 18
(2018) 353–365, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1229-y.
[67] M. Hernandez, T.W. Collins, S.E. Grineski, Immigration, mobility, and environmental injustice: a comparative study of Hispanic people’s residential decision-
making and exposure to hazardous air pollutants in Greater Houston, Texas, Geoforum 60 (2015) 83–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.01.013.
[68] J. Chakraborty, P. Basu, Linking industrial hazards and social inequalities: environmental injustice in Gujarat, India, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 16 (42)
(2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010042.
[69] A. Jerolleman, Disaster Recovery through the Lens of Justice, Palgrave Pivot, Cham (Switzerland), 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04795-5.

14