Unravelling the „capacity-action-gap”: An exploration of the difficult role of adaptive capacity in explaining the uptake of private flood risk adaptation measures

Residents are increasingly expected to take adaptive actions to reduce risks and to strengthen resilience in the case of extreme events, like floods (e.g. Begg et al., 2017). In recent years, the focus of flood risk management (FRM) has shifted from structural, mainly government-led interventions, to more integrated approaches which stress the responsibility of households to protect themselves from flood damages (Kuhlicke et al., 2020). However, especially in the case of pluvial flooding, the uptake of measures at the household level is still low. To appraise the adaptive behaviour of households, research typically uses adaptive capacity as the main proxy (Grothmann & Reusswig, 2006; Mortreux et al. 2020). However, it is increasingly clear that high levels of adaptive capacity do not necessarily lead to high levels of private adaptation (Mortreux et al. 2020). A better theoretical and empirical understanding of the gap between adaptive capacity and action is therefore urgently needed.

This paper, therefore, addresses the following questions:

(1) What kinds of measures are (not) taken by what kind of households?

(2) What are the most decisive factors explaining why households become active to protect themselves?

(3) How are the taken measures related to the adaptive capacity of households?

Our study is based on a survey conducted in early 2022 with 1,615 households in a region in Upper Bavaria (Oberland region), Germany, which is heavily affected by increasing floods. Being one of the most affluent and dynamically growing regions in Germany, the adaptive capacity of households and communities is comparatively high. Yet, adaptation action remains at a rather low level. Therefore, the study region forms an excellent test case to investigate a possible “capacity-action gap”.

 

By means of descriptive statistics and regression analysis, different sets of private measures (building measures and insurance uptake) are linked to household profiles. Thereby, exposure, vulnerability, and different dimensions of the adaptive capacity of the household are taken into account. Our results indicate a “capacity-action-gap” (Schubert et al., forthcoming). In fact, variables such as property ownership, risk awareness and previous flood experience have far more explanatory power whereas classical adaptive capacity indicators such as education and income only serve as proxies for a few related variables (e.g., property ownership and coping capacity).

With these insights into households’ practices and perceptions, we want to contribute to a more nuanced and critical discussion on the trend of individualizing responsibilities in FRM. Thus, the question is how to achieve a resilient society in the coming years, if even those households which are endowed with sufficient resources cannot be expected to adapt out of their own free choice and on their own.