In mountainous regions worldwide, more than 1.1 billion people face the threat of flash floods, a risk exacerbated by climate change and intensified human activity, highlighting the urgent need for effective flash flood risk governance systems. This study examines flash flood risk governance in rural mountainous China by linking an institutional analysis of a state-led, multi-level governance system with a household-level assessment of governance effectiveness. Drawing on survey data from 811 households in flash flood-prone villages, we construct a latent index of flood safety cognition, grounded in the psychometric paradigm and institutional trust theory, and estimate a structural equation model to identify how mitigation measures at government, community and household scales jointly influence this outcome. Government-led measures have the strongest positive effect on flood safety cognition, while community and household actions also contribute but to a lesser extent. Structural interventions such as dikes, river channel restoration, infrastructure upgrades and resettlement, together with timely emergency relief, significantly enhance perceived safety.Community institutions such as village regulations and traditional knowledge reinforce these effects. By contrast, house foundation elevation is negatively associated with safety cognition, reflecting reverse causality and selection among the most exposed and constrained households rather than failure of the measure itself. Robustness checks and sensitivity analyses confirm that these patterns are stable. Beyond the model results, the analysis offers a dialectical perspective on China's flash flood governance system, highlighting both the strengths of strong leadership, responsibility arrangements and fiscal transfers and the tensions created by upgraded responses, early warning precision gaps and fragmented multi-hazard governance. The study suggests that lessons from this case are best understood as transferable principles, including multi-level accountability with matched authority and resources, integration of flood risk governance into broader development agendas, explicit attention to compound risks and the combination of structural measures with community institutions, nature-based solutions and regulated public-private partnerships.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
