Social justice in socio-hydrology—how we can integrate the two different perspectives

Figures & data

Table 1. Principles for distributing risk burdens

Principles	Who pays?
Polluter pays principle (PPP)	People who increase risk of flood events – especially those who manage land or build structures or, due to their behaviour, cause flooding to be worse – have to pay for flood protection, regardless of their socioeconomic background; this includes people who do not live in the floodplain area but influence the runoff.
Beneficiary pays principle (BPP)	People who gain (directly and indirectly) from flood reduction measures need to pay.
Ability to pay principle (APP)	People who can afford to should pay for flood protection.
Principle of equality (PE)	There should be intra- and intergenerational equality.

Table 2. Theoretical concepts of social justice and their meanings in flood risk management

Concepts of social justice	Short description	Floodplain management system
Utilitarian – e.g. Bentham ([1789] 1982), Mill ([1863] 2010)	Focus on protecting communities that will derive the highest benefit (based on cost-benefit logic). The main question is who gets protection and what type of protection.	Hard protection measures are based on those members of the community to whom the benefits offer the greatest gain to the community.
Libertarian – e.g. Hayek ([1944] 1991), Ostrom (1986), North (1990)	Focus on individual view of floodplain management system; individual responsibility with the only task for public administration being to provide a legal framework and information about hazards. The main question is how I (as a household) can protect myself (individual decision).	No hard protection measures are funded by the public administration; the main focus is on property-level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures.
Egalitarian – e.g. Nussbaum (2000), Sen (2010)	Allocation of responsibility to meet resource needs equally distributed within floodplain management; the aim is to ensure equality of capability. The main question is how capability can be ensured.	The flood risk management system foresees an equal level of protection within the community.
Prioritarian – e.g. Rawls ([1971] 2005)	Focus on the most vulnerable (e.g. deprived) households within the selected communities. However, prioritarians accept inequalities within a community if the worst-off benefit from the new policy outcome. The main question is who the most vulnerable are within the community.	Hard protection measures focus on the most vulnerable within community

Bentham, J., [1789] 1982. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Reprint ed. Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: Routledge Kegan & Paul.

 Google Scholar

Mill, J.S., [1863] 2010. Utilitarianism. Scotts Valley: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

 Google Scholar

Hayek, F.A., [1944] 1991. The road to serfdom. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Ostrom, E., 1986. An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48 (1), 3–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00239556

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. The political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M.C., 2000. The costs of tragedy: some moral limits of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29 (S2), 1005–1036. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/468103

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sen, A., 2010. The idea of justice. London: Penguin.

 Google Scholar

Rawls, J., [1971] 2005. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Google Scholar