Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This assessment highlights flood impacts in Denmark, revealing hidden costs and inequalities to inform climate policy.
Climate impacts are unevenly distributed, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. However, quantitative assessments of the multidimensional challenges people face during climate events remain limited. To address this gap, this study provides a human-centred assessment of flood burdens in Denmark through the lens of the Capability Approach (CA). This study develops a theoretical framework linking flood impacts with CA, identifies 9 key human capabilities affected by flooding in Denmark, and calculates a societal damage cost that goes beyond conventional economic assessments by quantifying 3 hidden costs related to lost human capabilities and functionings: increased time for post-flood household and other related tasks, illness, and increased travel-time. Finally, this study develops a novel non-linear weighting method, using regression-derived elasticities, to assess the inequality burden of floods across Danish municipalities based on socio-demographic factors: age, income, education. Findings reveal that conventional economic assessments substantially underestimate flood damage burdens. Including the 3 hidden costs adds approximately 7.92% (30 million EUR) to Denmark’s total flood damage cost, rising to 32% in some municipalities. The inequality burden analysis, driven by socio-demographic factors adds an additional 0.79–3.27% to the Danish flood damage burden. This burden varies widely (0.03% − 18.61%) across municipalities demonstrating that a uniform policy response would be inequitable as the burden is higher for island municipalities with specific social characteristics. The framework and methods developed provide essential tools for informing effective and targeted climate policy. The approach is adaptable and can be applied to measure the inequality burdens of other climate events and in other countries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Some et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: