- Original authors / creators
- Georgina M. Sanchez; Margaret A. Lawrimore; Anna Petrasova; John B. Vogler; Elyssa L. Collins; Vaclav Petras; Truffaut Harper; Emma J. Butzler; Ross K. Meentemeyer
- Original publication
- PLOS ONE · PLOS · 2024-12-31
- License & retained notices
- CC BY 4.0
© 2024 Sanchez et al
Article-specific license evidence ↗Exact license notice
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Article-specific XML license URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ - Edition changes
- Narrative text edition with normalized whitespace. Figures, tables, display equations and separately licensed material are omitted; consult the preserved XML and original publisher for definitive content.
- Evidence limits
- Adjacent research, not a directly sampled family-office study. Applicability to a family office requires separate assessment. Our study provides novel insights into how floodplain regulation may paradoxically increase flood exposure and risk at the edge of the floodplain. However, there are additional considerations that could be addressed in future research. This study is limited to flood regulations in the U.S., though many other countries also use risk-based approaches to floodplain management. Definitions of “high-risk” flood zones vary across countries. For example, the U.S., Canada, Germany define high-risk zones as areas with a 1% annual probability of flooding [73, 74], while the United Kingdom uses a 1% threshold for riverine flooding and a 0.5% for coastal flooding [75]. Future research could explore the presence of the safe development paradox in floodplain regulation across the globe. Attention could also be given to how authority differs by country. In the U.S., floodplain management is relatively decentralized, with federal agencies like FEMA providing guidelines, but significant authority resides with local and state governments. In contrast, the Netherlands, given its smaller size and low-lying geography, adopts a more centralized approach with coordinated national strategies and a stricter 0.01% annual probability standard [76]. Our study examines amount of developed land within and surrounding floodplains but does not delineate between types of development (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial). Research on flood risk management highlights the clear disparities faced by socially vulnerable populations—particularly female, economically disadvantaged, Black, and Hispanic individuals—who often bear a disproportionate burden of flood risk [77–80]. While past studies have primarily focused on documenting the communities that experience higher exposure within the regulatory floodplain [27, 79, 80] or those directly affected by flood events [77, 78], there remains an opportunity for future work to comprehensively assess the socio-economic background of communities residing immediately adjacent to the floodplain boundary. Understanding the socio-economic context of at-risk communities can provide valuable insights into the unintended consequences of flood management policies and interventions that may disproportionately harm vulnerable populations [5]. Future research could also consider how localized economic drivers and zoning regulations shape settlement patterns in relation to designated high-risk zones, providing a more in-depth understanding of development in areas with disproportionate exposure. Further assessments may also consider the impacts of climate change and sea-level rise on the spatial footprint of flood risk and how different communities may respond and adapt to increasing flood risks in the future [34, 80]. By incorporating socio-economic factors and considering the evolving impacts of climate change, future research can contribute to more equitable and effective flood risk management approaches. In this study, we examined historical and future development patterns in relation to the regulatory 100-year floodplain. Our findings provide valuable insights into the "safe development paradox," where efforts to reduce flood risk can reshape land use decisions and paradoxically lead to increased exposure through the concentration of development in areas immediately adjacent to the regulatory floodplain boundary. We observed a consistent pattern of development concentration within the 0–250 m distance zone from the floodplain at the national, state, and county levels. This trend of increasing development near floodplain boundaries reflects a preference for proximity to water bodies and simultaneous avoidance of the 100-year floodplain, revealing the U.S. regulatory floodplain as a case of the safe development paradox. The binary categorization of risk zones, with properties either inside or outside the 100-year floodplain, often leads to the perception that properties just outside of the floodplain are safe from flooding risks. This perception can be misleading and discourages residents from purchasing flood insurance or following strict building requirements, potentially putting them at greater risk during flood events. Our study underscores the limitations of current floodplain maps in effectively communicating flood risk, particularly with the dynamic nature of flood hazards. A forward-looking approach to floodplain management should prioritize spatially continuous estimates of flood hazard rather than a simplified binary representation of risk. Our approach to examining the SDP phenomenon at a large scale can be applied across various regulatory contexts to understand how designated flood zones influence development patterns worldwide.
- Retraction / correction check
- No linked notice identified in retrieved XML or Crossref relation/update-to fields. Article-specific repository XML related-article links, Crossref DOI relation/update-to fields, and a bounded publisher-page notice search where accessible; unavailable pages and unregistered/unlinked notices remain coverage limits. Verified 2026-11-05. Automated/source checks are not human peer review.
- Preserved record
- Rights and full text checked 2026-11-05. Included in this volume on 2026-11-05. Original source dates remain unchanged.
Download the preserved source
SHA-256 (retrieved artifact): 450def3e266cdd964777310ae5da8535fc2c16aa50aeb12b6573fcb91c03ba89
SHA-256 (preserved text edition): 6c1dbacd1caf5499ffdfd35b133b22069b75d19b92bbe6253982cd145a295c64