78 C Lucas and T Young
How is flood resilience discursively constructed by insurers
and governments in the United States and Australia?
Resilience discourse has not only dominated disaster research in recent decades, but has driven recovery policies with complicated results (Tierney 2015).
Evolving interpretations of resilience have become integral in the ways
governments, the insurance industry, and individuals navigate the hazard
landscape. Driven by an array of actors, resilience discourses are (re)framed
and (re)produced across scales – driving major flood infrastructure projects,
incentivising development, and individualising risk.
Our case studies illustrate the various roles that government and private
interests play in constructing resilience, assigning responsibility, and shaping socioeconomic futures. Resilience discourses have become ‘usefully
ambiguous,’ as their fluidity and malleability allow different actors to use
them in different ways at different times (Tierney 2015). Often, this ambiguity allows for symbiotic partnerships that reduce insurance exposure and
allow for development in vulnerable and previously undevelopable areas.
Through lobbying efforts (including withdrawal of insurance), the insurance industry convinces the government that the construction of reservoir
and levee projects increases the resilience of surrounding communities to
impacts from flooding. This allows for increased development (broader tax
base) while protecting private interests (flood insurance liability). This pattern of events has occurred multiple times in the United States (Kunreuther
2006) and Australia (McAneney et al. 2016).
Relationships between governments and the insurance industry are
instrumental in the way resilience is constructed. In the United States, the
dominant discourse of the NFIP is that it makes communities more resilient
to the impacts of flooding by easing the financial burden on homeowners
and creating a baseline for flood management. In this sense, resilience is
constructed as a shared goal, one in which private insurers, governments,
and homeowners work together to ensure that economic baselines – such as
tax revenue and development incentives – are maintained. This shared goal
makes sure the ‘business’ in business-as-usual is front and centre.
However, the lived experience of households impacted by flooding can
be complicated by the NFIP. In particular, the program can incentivise
development in high-risk areas, with long-term negative consequences for
homeowners (Kunreuther 2006). Outdated flood management (mapping,
building codes, and infrastructure) provides a false sense of security to residents in exposed areas, and the subsidisation of insurance masks the premiums needed to make and keep the NFIP solvent (Kunreuther 2006).
In Australia, despite private insurance being central to government discourses of climate resilience (Lucas & Booth 2020) and no public flood/
disaster insurance schemes, inadequate insurance is still prominent during
flood disasters. Lack of flood insurance availability, affordability, and transparency has been the subject of multiple independent reviews (Mason 2011).
How is flood resilience discursively constructed by insurers
and governments in the United States and Australia?
Resilience discourse has not only dominated disaster research in recent decades, but has driven recovery policies with complicated results (Tierney 2015).
Evolving interpretations of resilience have become integral in the ways
governments, the insurance industry, and individuals navigate the hazard
landscape. Driven by an array of actors, resilience discourses are (re)framed
and (re)produced across scales – driving major flood infrastructure projects,
incentivising development, and individualising risk.
Our case studies illustrate the various roles that government and private
interests play in constructing resilience, assigning responsibility, and shaping socioeconomic futures. Resilience discourses have become ‘usefully
ambiguous,’ as their fluidity and malleability allow different actors to use
them in different ways at different times (Tierney 2015). Often, this ambiguity allows for symbiotic partnerships that reduce insurance exposure and
allow for development in vulnerable and previously undevelopable areas.
Through lobbying efforts (including withdrawal of insurance), the insurance industry convinces the government that the construction of reservoir
and levee projects increases the resilience of surrounding communities to
impacts from flooding. This allows for increased development (broader tax
base) while protecting private interests (flood insurance liability). This pattern of events has occurred multiple times in the United States (Kunreuther
2006) and Australia (McAneney et al. 2016).
Relationships between governments and the insurance industry are
instrumental in the way resilience is constructed. In the United States, the
dominant discourse of the NFIP is that it makes communities more resilient
to the impacts of flooding by easing the financial burden on homeowners
and creating a baseline for flood management. In this sense, resilience is
constructed as a shared goal, one in which private insurers, governments,
and homeowners work together to ensure that economic baselines – such as
tax revenue and development incentives – are maintained. This shared goal
makes sure the ‘business’ in business-as-usual is front and centre.
However, the lived experience of households impacted by flooding can
be complicated by the NFIP. In particular, the program can incentivise
development in high-risk areas, with long-term negative consequences for
homeowners (Kunreuther 2006). Outdated flood management (mapping,
building codes, and infrastructure) provides a false sense of security to residents in exposed areas, and the subsidisation of insurance masks the premiums needed to make and keep the NFIP solvent (Kunreuther 2006).
In Australia, despite private insurance being central to government discourses of climate resilience (Lucas & Booth 2020) and no public flood/
disaster insurance schemes, inadequate insurance is still prominent during
flood disasters. Lack of flood insurance availability, affordability, and transparency has been the subject of multiple independent reviews (Mason 2011).