Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban flooding presents a global challenge, disproportionately affecting socially vulnerable communities. In the U.S., catastrophic floods are compounded by climate change, aging infrastructure, rapid land development, and population growth. Flooding causes more damage than any other severe weather-related event, with an annual average cost of US $4.5 billion and an average of 17 fatalities per year between 1980 and 2024. FEMA’s outdated 100-year floodplain delineations fail to capture evolving flood risk, leading to development inside and outside of 100-year floodplains and potentially higher flood risk for vulnerable communities. Excluding development in 500-year floodplains would reduce risk, although encroachment of urban development into 500-year floodplains exacerbates risks. Despite extensive coastal flood risk and environmental justice research, few studies have been conducted in inland areas like the Intermountain West. Our study analyzes FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer and data from the 2017–2021 American Community Survey to quantify flood injustices in Salt Lake County, Utah. We develop a straight-forward and easily implementable approach for city and county level planning and flood injustice policymaking. Our objectives include assessing demographic attributes within and outside 500-year floodplains, identifying household and population flood injustices, and overlaying 500-year floodplain maps and selected flood injustice variables. Results show that although 44% of Salt Lake County’s 500-year floodplain is in the City of South Salt Lake, the cities of Millcreek and South Jordan emerge as most vulnerable for 500-year flood injustices, these cities have flood risk ratios of 1.92 and 1.67, respectively, where a risk ratio greater than 1.00 indicates potentially concerning flood injustice. These findings highlight observed inequities but do not indicate or prove systematic, intentional, or historical biases resulting from past or present discriminatory policies and practices within these cities. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of flood injustices in inland urban areas, shedding light on the intersection of flood risk and social vulnerability at microscales. Identifying flood injustice communities can inform targeted interventions and policy measures to mitigate flood injustices and enhance flood resilience and adaptation in inland urban areas for vulnerable communities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".