Risk management, justice (i.e. equity, fairness), and sustainability are tightly interconnected. This literature review investigates how and why justice is considered in flood risk management. 20 scientific documents published between 2015 and 2020 are analyzed in depth. The results show a distinction between distributive and procedural justice and a complicated judgment of fairness based on different philosophies that vary depending on the country, the type of flood, and the type of strategy studied. Equity is found to be an under-discussed topic compared to its importance. Justice in flood risk management matters because (i) the impacts of floods affect different people unevenly, (ii) the interest in equity evinced by public authorities influences societal transformation, and (iii) the perception of fairness matters at both individual and collective levels. This paper analyzes the link between justice considerations and sustainability in relation to four dimensions: social, ecological, spatial, and temporal. Social and spatial issues are the most commonly studied in the literature, while ecological and temporal ones have generally been overlooked, creating a research gap. The results are discussed in terms of their diversities of justice concepts, places of investigation, and types of strategies. Various justice frameworks are used, but since none of them focus specifically on the contribution of flood risk management to sustainability through justice considerations, a flood risk justice framework is developed, which translates into theoretical and practical tools. It is based on the considerations of both humans and non-humans into different spatio-temporal scales.

Comprehensively addressing different aspects of justice is essential to enable risk management to contribute to sustainable development. This article offers a new conceptual framework called risk justice that comprises procedural, distributive, and corrective justice in four dimensions related to sustainable development: social, ecological, spatial, and temporal issues. Risk justice is defined as the quality of being fair and reasonable while governing and managing a possible negative event. After explaining the conceptual framework, a detailed content analysis of two international guidelines for disaster risk management (the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 and the European Floods Directive) illustrates the analytical potential of the risk justice framework. Findings show strong emphasis on social and spatial aspects of distributive and procedural justice in the two documents, whereas considerations of corrective justice and temporal and ecological issues are scarce or indirect. This may result in conflicting impacts of disaster risk management on sustainable development. Therefore, discussing risk management with a risk justice viewpoint while elaborating guidelines or choosing risk management strategies provides new avenues for sustainable development and facilitates transparent trade-offs. Our risk justice framework enables risk practitioners and researchers to reflect systemically about justice in risk management in different risk contexts and can be used both as a proactive and as a retrospective tool.

Background: Dual crises happen when an acute shock unfolds in the context of a creeping crisis. The July 2021 floods in the Vesdre river basin (Wallonia, Belgium) is a typical case of such dual crises in the context of climate change. This study is based on 16 semi-structured interviews (conducted in Spring 2023) with 10 mayors, 4 representatives of the Public Service of Wallonia, 1 person working for the federal government, and 4 project managers, coupled with a document analysis (n = 13). It investigates the temporal strategies that connect short and long-term considerations in the aftermath of this disaster (timing, futuring, pacing, cyclical adaptation, and determining time horizons), at two different governmental levels: river basin and municipal level. Results: In general, the window of opportunity to improve disaster resilience has been seized. Several studies were initiated by the Walloon region that shape the idea of an ideal future for the river basin and give recommendations for how to reach it. Unfortunately, those recommendations still come late compared to the temporal reality of the reconstruction process. Municipalities wish to strengthen disaster resilience as soon as possible, but they have to prioritize certain actions over others because of limited resources. The recommendations are considered flexible enough to adapt strategies to future contexts, but no monitoring and evaluation system for doing so has been implemented so far. In addition, clear policy agendas with transformational goals are scarce, and they diverge between the river basin and the municipalities. All these temporal strategies are shaped by elements of the institutional policy arrangement: resources, which affect them all, as well as actors, power, and formal rules, which affect some. These policy dimensions notably slow down the implementation of disaster resilience strategies and limit the determination of consensual time horizons. Conclusions: The temporal strategies are passively shaped by the policy arrangement dimensions to a greater extent than actively chosen by the stakeholders. A structural transformation of the institutional policy arrangement is therefore needed to enable more coherent temporal strategies between different governance levels and to facilitate the consideration of long-term resilience during the recovery process from disasters.