Abstract:As governments race to implement new climate adaptation policies that prepare for more frequent flooding, they must seek policies that are effective for all communities and uphold climate justice. This requires evaluating policies not only on their overall effectiveness but also on whether their benefits are felt across all communities. We illustrate the importance of considering such disparities for flood adaptation using the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System and its dataset of $\sim$2.5 million flood insurance claims. We use ${\rm C{\scriptsize AUSAL}F{\scriptsize LOW}}$, a causal inference method based on deep generative models, to estimate the treatment effect of flood adaptation interventions based on a community's income, diversity, population, flood risk, educational attainment, and precipitation. We find that the program saves communities \$5,000--15,000 per household. However, these savings are not evenly spread across communities. For example, for low-income communities savings sharply decline as flood-risk increases in contrast to their high-income counterparts with all else equal. Even among low-income communities, there is a gap in savings between predominantly white and non-white communities: savings of predominantly white communities can be higher by more than \$6000 per household. As communities worldwide ramp up efforts to reduce losses inflicted by floods, simply prescribing a series flood adaptation measures is not enough. Programs must provide communities with the necessary technical and economic support to compensate for historical patterns of disenfranchisement, racism, and inequality. Future flood adaptation efforts should go beyond reducing losses overall and aim to close existing gaps to equitably support communities in the race for climate adaptation.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### What problems does this paper attempt to solve?
This paper aims to explore and reveal the differences in the effectiveness of flood adaptation measures in different communities in order to promote more equitable future interventions. Specifically, by analyzing the data set of the Community Rating System (CRS) of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the United States, the author evaluates the effectiveness of flood adaptation policies and studies the impact of these policies on communities with different incomes, diversities, population sizes, education levels, and flood risks. The following are the main problems that the paper attempts to solve:
1. **Evaluate the overall effectiveness of flood adaptation policies**:
- Researchers use the causal inference method (CausalFlow), based on the deep generative model, to estimate the effects of flood adaptation interventions. The results show that the CRS program saves each household approximately $5,000 - $15,000 in flood losses.
2. **Reveal the differences in effectiveness among different communities**:
- Although the CRS program is generally effective, the benefits it brings are not evenly distributed among different types of communities. For example, the amount of savings in low - income communities in high - flood - risk areas is significantly reduced, while high - income communities can obtain more savings.
- In low - income communities, white - dominated communities save more than non - white - dominated communities, with a gap of more than $6,000.
3. **Emphasize the importance of climate justice**:
- The paper points out that the effectiveness of flood adaptation measures is closely related to economic and racial differences. Low - income and more diverse communities face more challenges when implementing and benefiting from these measures.
- In order to achieve climate justice, future flood adaptation policies should not only focus on reducing overall losses, but also strive to narrow the existing gaps to ensure that all communities can benefit fairly.
4. **Propose improvements to future flood adaptation strategies**:
- The research results indicate that future flood adaptation projects should customize adaptation measures according to the specific needs of the community and provide necessary technical support and resources to overcome financial, technical, and educational barriers.
- Especially when designing incentive mechanisms, a one - size - fits - all approach should be avoided, and instead, communities should be required to implement adaptation measures that are most suitable for their needs.
Through these analyses, the paper provides an important basis for rethinking and improving future flood adaptation policies, especially in considering the impact of climate change on vulnerable groups.
### Key Formulas
- **Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE)**:
\[
\text{CATE} = E[Y|X, T = 1] - E[Y|X, T = 0]
\]
where \(Y\) is the outcome variable, \(X\) is the covariate, and \(T\) is the treatment variable (0 represents the control group and 1 represents the treatment group).
- **Monte Carlo Integration to Estimate CATE**:
\[
\text{CATE} = \frac{1}{N_T} \sum_{i = 1}^{N_T} Y'_{T,i} - \frac{1}{N_C} \sum_{j = 1}^{N_C} Y'_{C,j}
\]
where \(Y'_{T,i} \sim q_T(Y|X)\) and \(Y'_{C,j} \sim q_C(Y|X)\) are samples drawn from the conditional probability distributions of the treatment group and the control group respectively.
### Conclusion
This paper emphasizes the importance of climate justice by analyzing and quantifying in detail the differences in the benefits of different communities in flood adaptation measures, and provides valuable references for future policy - making.