Recent investigations have demonstrated that flooding is a costly natural hazard that causes significant disruptions to community-based and economic activities (Peterson et al. 2013; Fernandez et al. 2018; Bakkensen and Blair 2020; Adeel et al. 2020; Wing et al. 2022). Several factors are contributing to exacerbation of these economic and societal impacts, including increasing population stresses on ecosystems and societal response mechanisms, greater exposure of assets in flood-prone areas, increasing trend of adverse land-use changes such as intense urbanization and vegetation removal for agriculture, and more intense climate-related events. Intensification of climate-related events means heavier rainfall events that are often characterized as atmospheric rivers, along with sea level rise, increased flooding from more intense hurricanes, and coastal erosion (IPCC 2012; Seneviratne et al. 2012; Hodgkins et al. 2017).
A global assessment indicates that extreme river flooding events with a 20- and 50-yr return period have significantly increased in temperate zones, which covers a large fraction of the land area in North America (Slater et al. 2021). Anecdotally, several events in 2021 and 2022 for which economic impacts exceeded $1 billion demonstrate the severity of flooding in North America (Vale 2022) including the May 2021 heavy rainfall and flooding in Louisiana, the July 2022 flooding in the east-central United States (Kentucky, Missouri), and the November 2021 atmospheric river event in British Columbia that led to extensive flooding damage to infrastructure (Charlebois 2021; Orton 2021). Given the geographical scale of the flooding events, there is a strong argument for analyzing transboundary floods and creating institutional mechanisms for information sharing and common flood management approaches (Bakker 2009; Heinrich and Penning-Rowsell 2022).
Knowledge exchange is important for transboundary governance of natural resources (Cash et al. 2003) and for mutual aid programs (Paolisso et al. 2019). Applying standards from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), nations across the world have monitored physical variables for weather and climate (e.g., temperature, precipitation) and shared those data for decades (Mildner 2003). Within countries, such as the United States, there also have been efforts to standardize and share weather observations from nonfederal networks (Stalker et al. 2013). Yet the WMO does not have standards for monitoring and data sharing of impacts of weather and climate.
There are numerous studies that present the economic damages of individual flood events or attempt to provide national estimates of damages and economic losses in Canada, Mexico, and the United States (Oulahen 2014; Haer et al. 2018; Davenport et al. 2021). None of these prior studies, however, attempt to comprehensively determine the short- and long-term economic impacts of flooding events, including a sector-by-sector analysis (Adeel et al. 2020). Lack of readily available and reliable data and the incremental costs associated with a comprehensive economic assessment are the likely contributing factors for the absence of such studies in the published literature.
Scope of this paper
This paper critically analyzes the research methods used to conduct a trinational project that aimed at developing a standardized methodology to assess comprehensive flooding methodology and formulates recommendations for enhancing impacts of similar work in the future. While the paper briefly summarizes key aspects of the project for the reader, we direct interested readers to companion publications for a fuller description, including the design of the flood-costing methodology (Adeel et al. 2020), data collection and analysis of significant flooding events and selected case studies (Wen et al. 2022), and policy recommendations to the three federal governments (CEC 2021).
The underlying research study was conducted during 2019–21. A 5-yr test window (2013–17) to assess major flood events was selected in consultation with the federal governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It was intended to provide the most recent available data at the time of commencement of the study and one that would provide consistent datasets. The major flood events that were included in the study (i) caused significant economic damages; (ii) affected sizeable or significant populations or areas (e.g., impacted multiple municipalities); and, (iii) in some cases, triggered a national or provincial state of emergency (Wen et al. 2022).
Summary overview of the research project
During 2019–21, a collaborative and trinational research project supported by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)1 brought together participants from the three countries representing governmental agencies, academia and the research community, Indigenous communities, and industry stakeholders (Adeel et al. 2020). The primary objective of the project was to develop a standardized methodology for assessing the comprehensive cost of extreme floods across Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This methodology defines impacts from three categories (direct damages, indirect effects, and losses and additional costs) and four sectors (social sector, infrastructure, economic sector, and emergency assistance) (Adeel et al. 2020). A secondary objective was to utilize this methodology to assess the availability of supporting data in the three countries, understand the temporal and spatial trends associated with extreme flooding, and use these analyses to develop recommendations for enhanced resilience against economic impacts of floods (Wen et al. 2022).
Implementation of this project entailed organizing three international knowledge-exchange (K-E) workshops, one dialogue with Indigenous researchers and individuals serving as liaisons to Indigenous communities, and numerous scientific consultations. As shown in Fig. 1, these events elicited somewhat even participation from government representatives, academia, and other participants; we note, however, that the individuals representing these sectors in each workshop were different. The insurance industry was also represented in all meetings except in the Indigenous dialogue. The third K-E workshop was deliberately targeted to engage a larger fraction of government representatives, because it focused on developing recommendations for the three federal governments.
Distribution of the number of participants in the knowledge exchange workshops.
Citation: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 104, 7; 10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0141.1
Given the variability of the participants from one workshop to another, we had to invest preparatory time and expend a significant fraction of the workshop duration in orienting participants to the project and its progress. While we prepared detailed background papers for each workshop, most participants did not review those materials prior to the workshop. It was often difficult to achieve a common perspective during the limited duration of the workshops on issues of concern, such as the design of the database and data sources utilized in each of the three countries. We addressed this gap, heightened in the virtual workshops, by conducting targeted and detailed discussions with individuals before and after the workshops.
The Indigenous dialogue was designed to explore the association of different Indigenous communities with floods and their impacts. There was also discussion on how colonization had impacted the capacity of Indigenous communities to respond to floods, particularly in maintaining sovereignty over data accumulation and designing responses to major flooding events. This dialogue revealed that while water is viewed as a living entity that is holy and sacred, even through disasters, there is considerable diversity of perspectives on flooding, and different Indigenous peoples have different needs for information, aid, planning, etc., for addressing economic impacts of floods. We also noted that wealthy or powerful nations or communities with strong voices generally are the focus of interactions with federal agencies, excluding the perspectives of poor and marginalized communities and dismissing their priorities for recovery and transformative measures to ameliorate future flood impacts.
The Indigenous dialogue and our background research confirmed that a culturally appropriate framework for flood assessment, management, and mitigation in Indigenous communities is lacking. There is a scarcity of peer-reviewed studies on this topic, which considerably restricts a comprehensive flood risk assessment and mitigation for Indigenous people (Thistlethwaite et al. 2020). We concluded that the CEC methodology was designed on the basis of quantified datasets that are important to Indigenous communities but is not well suited to including narrative-based or imagery-based information often considered critical. Addressing this issue would require a long-term study that is led by Indigenous scholars and designed in collaboration with Indigenous communities and leadership.
Based on the data we collected, a conservative estimate of the total damage for 22 large-scale flood events that occurred in the three countries between 2013 and 2017 was calculated to be approximately $17 billion (U.S. dollars), as shown in Fig. 2 (CEC 2021). To contextualize these figures, we note that a recent study indicates that the current average annual losses for all floods in the United States alone are estimated to be $32.1 billion (U.S. dollars) (Wing et al. 2022). It is important to note that floods across the international borders also have led to significant economic impacts and loss of human life in recent years, including the major flooding events in the Red River (Stadnyk et al. 2016) and the Rio Grande/Río Bravo watersheds (Pinson et al. 2014).
Flood-related economic impacts in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, 2013–17. Units: billions of U.S. dollars, inflation adjusted for 2020.
Citation: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 104, 7; 10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0141.1
Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the project
The COVID-19 pandemic coincided with a major fraction of the project duration (January 2020–July 2021), had profound impacts on how the project was conducted, and influenced the following key aspects:
Interactive dialogues.
The most significant impact of the pandemic was that three out of four international workshops/dialogues had to be organized as virtual events and the meetings participation significantly impacted. These virtual meetings precluded the opportunity for informal dialogue during breaks and meals that often facilitates generation of innovative solutions and cross-fertilization of ideas. Conversely, organizing these virtual events afforded real-time engagement across time zones and eliminated travel-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Data accumulation.
As per the original project plan, it was intended that project team members, mostly graduate students, would have been embedded during 2020 in key governmental agencies to facilitate data gathering. Such placements had to be ruled out due to the governmental restrictions on mobility and engagement enacted in March 2020. Instead, key public and private sector organizations were virtually engaged to gather data (Wen et al. 2022). While it is difficult to specifically analyze whether data accumulation could have been more comprehensive, it certainly took longer to accumulate and resulted in overall project delays.
Youth experience.
The project design had incorporated internships as a key learning experience for young team members, predominantly graduate students, at selected governmental agencies in the three countries: Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the National Center for Disaster Prevention [Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres (CENAPRED)], National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While youth involved in each country engaged with these agencies virtually, they could not achieve the experiential and networking aspects originally envisioned.
Research barriers
Based on the discussions during the workshops and in-depth analysis of the project team, three broad research barriers were identified.
Gaps in knowledge and research capacity.
During the course of the project, we observed that research capacity varies considerably across and within the three countries. A manifestation of this variability is that the flood-costing methods vary greatly among federal and subnational jurisdictions across the three countries. Given the different resources, expertise, and data needs across the jurisdictional levels, there is wide variation in the types of data that are collected as well as the methods used for collecting them. These methodological differences are further elaborated in the next section.
Further, such information is not adequately georeferenced or available in near–real time, and it is not well understood how different events “cascade” from one another (Wen et al. 2022). For example, it is notionally understood that dry periods or droughts in British Columbia result in forest wildfires, which contribute to more extreme flooding under intense rainfall events and postfire flows typically contain more debris than observed otherwise (Jordan 2015; Willardson 2020; McGuire et al. 2021). However, mutual correlation of the economic impacts of these interrelated hazards cannot be easily quantified due to the different geographical footprints of the areas impacted by forest wildfires and those subsequently impacted by flooding, and the varying temporal scales and timelines along which these events occur.
We also noted that in the case of Canada, where despite the state-of-the-science advancements on flood-related research, the Canadian Disaster Database (CDD) lags behind considerably in providing up-to-date, detailed, and accurate estimates of economic impacts of floods. In comparison, we found that NOAA collects up-to-date data on floods that exceed $1 billion (U.S. dollars) in damage. These data, however, lack details about sectorwise impacts and often do not compare well to data available through other federal and state agencies. Similarly, we found extensive and systematic data collection in Mexico under the auspices of CENAPRED, which is an apex federal agency (Wen et al. 2022). An in-depth case study undertaken for Mexico revealed that the CENAPRED datasets may be missing some details or not sufficiently capture impacts in remote, rural areas.
Differences in data collation and analysis methods.
Significant data gaps also exist that hamper the comprehensive and full-scale assessment of short-term damages and long-term losses, particularly in assessing uninsured losses (Wen et al. 2022). The weakest link in data gathering appears to be at the local level where municipalities and townships are not sufficiently resourced or mandated to collect pertinent data. Further, nationwide collation of localized flood-costing data does not take place in either Canada or the United States. We estimate that the lack of indirect loss data most likely results in substantial underestimation of the economic losses after major flooding events (Wen et al. 2022). The economic impact on the flow of goods and services due to disruptions to the transportation sector are often not recorded with any degree of certainty. For instance, significantly varying accounts of the economic impacts of the November 2021 floods in British Columbia have been reported in the media—these estimates range from CAN $7.5 billion by the economists at the Bank of Montreal (Orton 2021) that includes impacts on the transportation sector, to an Insurance Bureau of Canada estimate of CAN $450 million (Charlebois 2021). More recent estimates by the provincial government place the cost of highway repairs alone at approximately CAN $1 billion (Hoekstra 2022). Such order-of-magnitude differences in unofficial flood-cost estimations are not uncommon.
Linguistic barriers.
Our project found a lack of robust collaboration across the three countries, even for cross-border floods. Some of this gap can be ascribed to a simple language barrier that spans three languages: Spanish, English, and French. In the context of our project, several multilingual experts were engaged and multilingual simultaneous interpretation was provided during all interactive dialogues and workshops. However, most of the project planning meetings and communication were conducted in English, often leading to suboptimal exchange of ideas for nonnative English speakers.
Further, the terminology used in the scientific/research domain, the governmental sector, and the insurance industry varies considerably. For example, long-term impacts of floods are referred to as indirect damages in governmental documents whereas the insurance sector refers to these as losses. Through the workshop-based discussions, we were able to arrive at the three categories of economic impacts used in this study: direct damages, indirect effects, and losses and additional costs (Wen et al. 2022). There is similar disagreement in approaches for calculating losses (i.e., whether to incorporate write-off costs, or recovery of original capital costs, or calculated repair costs, or full-replacement costs) and making adjustments to account for inflation in economic-impact estimates.
Aiming for institutional enhancements in North America
The research barriers identified in this paper can be addressed through systemic and institutional changes to how flood-costing data are collected, analyzed, shared, and used for decision-making for building resilience against future floods.
Findings from the project point to what institutional changes would work best; for example, Mexico’s CENAPRED uses a centralized approach to data accumulation and analysis that provides more comprehensive and consistent datasets for flood costing. In the United States and Canada, multiple agencies focus on different jurisdictions and impact categories resulting in data dissonance.
Given the interconnectivity of extreme weather events in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, we propose the creation of a data exchange platform that would allow on-demand data discovery and sharing for flood-related datasets. A multinational knowledge portal can ensure that standardized and secure methods are used to create, manage, exchange, and extract meaningful information. Users from the insurance industry could input critical datasets at a spatial scale (e.g., census block or zip code based) that does not compromise their business model. Cost sharing by the three countries can result in significant savings through economies of scale and minimization of redundant mechanisms. Indirectly, such a hub could also trigger trinational collaborative efforts around risk mapping, targeted research efforts, effective community engagement, and evidence-based policy formulation.
It is imperative to build institutional capacity at national and subnational levels for comprehensive flood costing. We recognize that many governmental institutions—particularly at the subnational and local scales (such as municipalities)—lack the institutional capacity, skilled workers, and technological tools for comprehensive data gathering or assessment. Working collaboratively, key institutions in Canada, Mexico, and the United States can build the critical institutional capacity and provide personnel training for data collection, management, and dissemination (CEC 2021). Such collaboration can inter alia help identify and follow the best practices in data collection, management, and transparency.
Another area needing major institutional change is the manner of engagement with Indigenous communities. We identified that for many communities, the value of protection against or preparation for extreme events is not necessarily financial or economic, but one representing a continuation of valuable traditional ceremonies, protection of specific species, and management of hunting or fishing areas. Indigenous peoples may value ecosystems that are threatened by floods, and Indigenous knowledge can contribute to understanding how these valued systems are affected; this knowledge is often protected by elders or other members of Indigenous communities (STACCWG 2021).
Meaningful Indigenous participation in flood-costing exercises and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge requires a building of trust and mutual understanding—a process that might span years to decades of concerted and persistent effort by all parties (Chief et al. 2016). The trust deficit at present remains a significant but understandable stumbling block. Incorporation of traditional and Indigenous knowledge streams in the process of estimating economic impacts of flooding may require significant rethinking (Maldonado et al. 2016); it may entail changing the perspectives on values assigned to different infrastructure, social, and cultural constructs, and also reimagining what constitutes damage or loss. Continuous engagement of Indigenous scholars in multiyear or ongoing research and knowledge-integration studies is critical. Such studies should be matched with strategic, long-term commitment of financial and technological resources to support their research, with the overall objective of fully accommodating the Indigenous perspectives into flood-costing processes.
Conclusions: Rethinking research approaches for flood costing
The analysis presented in this paper identifies some significant institutional and policy shortcomings in how flood-costing data are collected, managed, analyzed, and utilized in decision-making. Addressing such shortcomings, through collective and collaborative policy frameworks, is the way forward; the academic and research community must play a foundational role in developing methodologies, analyzing policy frameworks that account for different institutional settings in the three countries, and providing an unbiased platform for stakeholder dialogue. The CEC project has demonstrated that such trinational collaborations among the research community can effectively overcome the institutional and linguistic barriers when designed and resourced adequately.
We recognize that the flood-costing methodology developed by this CEC project offers a foundational framework that can help bring consistency across the three countries, while incorporating the strengths and addressing many weaknesses pertaining to data availability and access. However, we must act to enhance our data and information flows related to economic impacts and invest in institutions and technologies that would facilitate governmental collaboration across the three countries. One major recommendation is to develop a centralized, trinational data-gathering hub that can offer consistency, comprehensiveness, and economy of scales toward enhanced data management. Other policy-focused and country-specific recommendations to improve the institutional settings are identified in the CEC policy brief (CEC 2021).
The CEC flood-costing methodology presented in Adeel et al. (2020) can be extended to include other hazards. While it is meant for measuring economic impacts of floods, the generic nature of its direct damage and long-term impact assessment approach makes it ideal for application to other natural hazards (such as wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, snowstorms, and landslides) and manmade disasters. Considerable research efforts need to be made to investigate approaches for interlinking economic impacts of cascading hazards; such research could benefit from engaging with ongoing initiatives led by the World Meteorological Organization [e.g., Cataloguing of Hazardous Weather, Water, Climate, Environmental and Space Weather Events (ET-CHE)] and the UN Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR).
The CEC—established in 1994 through the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation—facilitates collaboration and public participation to foster conservation, protection, and enhancement of the North American environment for the benefit of present and future generations, in the context of increasing economic, trade, and social links among Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
Data availability statement.
Due to confidentiality agreements, supporting data can only be made available to bona fide researchers subject to a nondisclosure agreement. Details of the data and how to request access are available from Dr. Zafar Adeel (zadeel@sfu.ca).
References
Adeel, Z., and Coauthors, 2020: Developing a comprehensive methodology for evaluating economic impacts of floods in Canada, Mexico and the United States. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 50, 101861, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101861.
Bakkensen, L., and L. Blair, 2020: Flood damage assessments: Theory and evidence from the United States. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1548.
Bakker, M. H. N., 2009: Transboundary river floods and institutional capacity. J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc., 45, 553–566, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00325.x.
Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, and R. B. Mitchell, 2003: Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 8086–8091, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
CEC, 2021: CEC policy brief on flood costing: Understanding the comprehensive economic impact of floods in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Commission for Environmental Cooperation Doc., 5 pp.
Charlebois, B., 2021: B.C. floods estimated to cost at least $450M, with uninsured damages raising amount further. National Post, 9 December, https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/first-nations-call-for-better-alert-system-more-funding-after-slow-flood-response.
Chief, K., A. Meadow, and K. Whyte, 2016: Engaging southwestern tribes in sustainable water resources topics and management. Water, 8, 350, https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080350.
Davenport, F. V., M. Burke, and N. S. Diffenbaugh, 2021: Contribution of historical precipitation change to US flood damages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e2017524118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017524118.
Fernandez, V., R. Silva, E. Mendoza, and B. Riedel, 2018: Coastal flood assessment due to extreme events at Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Ocean Coastal Manage., 165, 319–333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.007.
Haer, T., W. J. W. Botzen, and V. van Roomen, 2018: Coastal and river flood risk analyses for guiding economically optimal flood adaptation policies: A country-scale study for Mexico. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc., A376, 20170329, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0329.
Heinrich, D. F., and E. C. Penning-Rowsell, 2022: Flood risk management under uncertainty in transboundary basins: A delicate balancing act. Int. J. River Basin Manage., 20, 215–224, https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2020.1837845.
Hodgkins, G. A., P. H. Whitfield, D. H. Burn, J. Hannaford, B. Renard, K. Stahl, and D. Wilson, 2017: Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe. J. Hydrol., 552, 704–717, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.07.027.
Hoekstra, G., 2022: A year after floods, B.C. estimates cost of climate-resilient highway rebuilds at $1 billion. Vancouver Sun, 9 November, https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bc-floods-estimate-highway-rebuilds-1-billion.
IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. C. B. Field et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 582 pp.
Maldonado, J., T. B. Bennett, K. Chief, P. Cochran, K. Cozzetto, B. Gough, and G. Voggesser, 2016: Engagement with Indigenous peoples and honoring traditional knowledge systems. Climatic Change, 135, 111–126, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1535-7.
McGuire, L. A., F. K. Rengers, N. Oakley, J. W. Kean, D. M. Staley, H. Tang, M. de Orla-Barile, and A. M. Youberg, 2021: Time since burning and rainfall characteristics impact post-fire debris-flow initiation and magnitude. Environ. Eng. Geosci., 27, 43–56, https://doi.org/10.2113/EEG-D-20-00029.
Mildner, S., 2003: The role of the WMO World Weather Watch System in mitigating hydro-meteorological disasters. Early Warning Systems for Natural Disaster Reduction, J. Zschau and A. Küppers, Eds., Springer, 127–134.
Orton, T., 2021: BMO says cost of flood disaster likely to exceed $7.5b, cuts B.C.’s economic outlook. Business in Vancouver, 22 November, https://biv.com/article/2021/11/rbc-says-cost-flood-disaster-likely-exceed-75b-cuts-bcs-economic-outlook?utm_source=squamish%20chief&utm_campaign=squamish%20chief%3A%20outbound&utm_medium=referral.
Oulahen, G., 2014: Flood insurance in Canada: Implications for flood management and residential vulnerability to flood hazards. Environ. Manage., 55, 603–615, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0416-6.
Paolisso, M., C. Prell, K. J. Johnson, B. Needelman, and I. M. Khan, 2019: Enhancing socio-ecological resilience in coastal regions through collaborative science, knowledge exchange and social networks: A case study of the Deal Island Peninsula, USA. Socio-Ecol. Pract. Res., 1, 109–123, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00010-w.
Jordan, P., 2015: Post-wildfire debris flows in southern British Columbia, Canada. Int. J. Wildland Fire, 25, 322–336, https://doi.org/10.1071/WF14070.
Peterson, T. C., R. R. Heim, R. Hirsch, D. P. Kaiser, H. Brooks, N. S. Diffenbaugh, and D. Wuebbles, 2013: Monitoring and understanding changes in heat waves, cold waves, floods, and droughts in the United States: State of knowledge. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 821–834, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1.
Pinson, A. O., S. K. Scissons, S. W. Brown, and D. E. Walther, 2014: Post flood report: Record rainfall and flooding events during September 2013 in New Mexico, southeastern Colorado and far west Texas. USACE Rep., 201 pp., https://edac.unm.edu/projects/floodImages/2013%20September%20Flood%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.
Seneviratne, S. I., and Coauthors, 2012: Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, C. B. Field et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 109–230.
Slater, L., G. Villarini, S. Archfield, D. Faulkner, R. Lamb, A. Khouakhi, and J. Yin, 2021: Global changes in 20-year, 50-year, and 100-year river floods. Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL091824, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091824.
STACCWG, 2021: Status of tribes and climate change report. Northern Arizona University Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals Rep., 317 pp., https://sites.google.com/view/stacc2021-itep/how-to-access-report.
Stadnyk, T., K. Dow, L. Wazney, and E. L. Blais, 2016: The 2011 flood event in the Red River basin: Causes, assessment and damages. Can. Water Res. J., 41, 65–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2015.1008048.
Stalker, J., J. Lasley, G. Frederick, R. McPherson, P. Campbell, B. Philips, and B. Pasken, 2013: A nationwide network of networks. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 1602–1606, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-94.10.1602.
Thistlethwaite, J., D. Henstra, and A. Ziolecki, 2020: Managed retreat from high-risk flood areas: Design considerations for effective property buyout programs. CIGI Policy Brief 158, 12 pp., www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24935.
Vale, A. 2022: A look back at 10 billion-dollar disasters that happened in 2021. Stacker Media, https://stacker.com/weather/10-billion-dollar-disasters-2021.
Wen, X., and Coauthors, 2022: A comprehensive methodology for evaluating economic impacts of floods: An application to Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Sustainability, 14, 14139, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114139.
Willardson, B., 2020: Sustainable debris basins for post-fire protection. 2020 Intermountain Engineering, Technology and Computing, Orem, UT, IEEE, https://doi.org/10.1109/IETC47856.2020.9249179.
Wing, O. E. J., W. Lehman, P. D. Bates, C. C. Sampson, N. Quinn, A. M. Smith, J. C. Neal, and J. R. Porter, 2022: Inequitable patterns of US flood risk in the Anthropocene. Nat. Climate Change, 12, 156–162, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01265-6.
