When is a flood a flood?

Evidence is increasing on the diverse impacts of climate events on people and their lives. Notably, groups of people experience impacts differently. Recent research also highlights that there may be different definitions of what constitutes a climate event or disaster – even among household members.

Understanding these diverse and subjective perceptions may be an important precursor for governments and development partners aiming to strengthen people’s resilience to climate change. So, when is a flood actually a flood?

In 2022, SNV teams in Bhutan and two climatically distinct locations in Nepal (Sarlahi and Dailekh districts), together with the University of Technology Sydney’s Institute for Sustainable Futures (UTS-ISF) piloted two climate modules as part of their ongoing use of the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene – Gender Equality Measure (WASH-GEM).

The pilot aimed to develop a tool to examine the gendered experience of climate-related events.

Across the three locations, the teams interviewed over 2,000 respondents in half as many households. Wherever possible, enumerators separately interviewed two adult members of the same household of different genders (husband and wife).

‘In the last two years, how often have you experienced a {}?’ This question was one of the key framing questions for the perceived frequency of floods, severe storms, landslides, and drought. It was expected that husband-wife pairs would have similar responses. After all – a flood is when it floods, right?

Interestingly and unexpectedly, the results indicated statistically significant differences between the responses of women and men related to severe storms, landslides, and droughts across all three zones (Bhutan, Sarlahi, and Dailekh). The situation was even more complex for floods, as seen in Figure 1. While men perceived more flood events than women in Bhutan and Sarlahi (p< 0.01), women perceived more floods than men in Dailekh (p< 0.001). This difference cancels out in the overall calculation.

• In Bhutan, women perceived (p< 0.001) more floods, but men perceived (p< 0.001) more drought and severe storms. Landslides were not explored in Bhutan.

• In Dailekh, women perceived (p< 0.001) more floods, landslides, and droughts, but men perceived (p< 0.001) more severe storms.

• In Sarlahi, men perceived (p< 0.001) more climate events than women for floods, landslides, and severe storms.

The data suggest that a flood may not always be understood as a flood, with the same trend holding for landslides, droughts, and severe storms. These differences could be due to the different roles and responsibilities that men and women hold in these societies, such as gardening, water collection, and household repairs. However, more research is required to dig into these results to understand the reasons for these differences.

While the frequency and severity of climate events can also be objectively assessed using secondary climate sources, human perceptions represent an important dimension of climate resilience.

Subjective measures of resilience provide a means to understand gendered perceptions of climate preparedness and response.

While the above analysis focused on the frequency of climate events, gendered differences related to preparedness, recovery, seriousness and early warning were also explored. We brought these dimensions into a measure of individual hazard-specific resilience for floods, droughts, landslides, and severe storms. Across these aspects, there are gender, demographic, and geographic differences, indicating that resilience is socially and geographically differentiated and, importantly, gendered.

As such, indicators of resilience at the village or household level may overlook important individual and gender differences. Women and men may have different views on what constitutes a flood and may not share the same perceptions of climate preparedness and resilience.

Understanding these differences is key to supporting women and men in meaningful ways to build adaptive capacity to climate change.

Project Context: As part of the Australian Government’s Water for Women Fund, SNV collaborated with the governments of Nepal, Bhutan and Lao PDR and the University of Technology Sydney’s Institute for Sustainable Futures (UTS-ISF) to strengthen water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) systems. The partnership sought equitable and universal access to safely-managed sanitation and hygiene in seven districts in Bhutan and Lao PDR and to sustain rural water supply services in a further two districts in Nepal, setting in place the mechanisms needed to look ‘Beyond the Finish Line.’