The Safe Development Paradox of the United States Regulatory Floodplain.¶
Sanchez, G. M., Lawrimore, M. A., Petrasova, A., Vogler, J. B., Collins, E. L., Petras, V., Harper, T., et al. (2024). The Safe Development Paradox of the United States Regulatory Floodplain. PLOS ONE, 19(12).
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Exposure Creep
- In floodplain and coastal development — the origin — levees and seawalls reduce flood frequency, protected land is developed, and total assets-at-risk grow even as the return period appears favourable: the "levee effect" or "safe development paradox."
This sourceDocuments the "levee effect" / safe-development paradox: flood-risk reduction draws disproportionate development into and adjacent to the protected floodplain (24% of developed land by 2019), raising total exposure even as visible frequency falls.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The paper names and defines the levee effect and safe development paradox: flood protection draws development into flood-prone areas and raises potential damage.
“Research on the safe development paradox (SDP) has predominantly focused on the "levee effect," that is, the perception that flood protection infrastructure, such as levees, entirely removes the threat of flooding.”
- In floodplain and coastal development — the origin — levees and seawalls reduce flood frequency, protected land is developed, and total assets-at-risk grow even as the return period appears favourable: the "levee effect" or "safe development paradox."
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:2f90dac2d79d · see in the full table