Socio-environmental justice

Although this analysis is descriptive and does not offer specific infrastructure solutions to the flooding problems, we use the concept of socio-environmental justice as a base, in that we depart from the fact that, regardless of the living condition or income, all people in a city, rural, or urban area deserves to have similar conditions in order to protect them from vulnerability as much as possible, understanding of course that this is not totally possible. Yet, in the cases analysed, the flooding areas are clearly identified; and even with that, the many families reported to have suffered floods more than once, which is not expected in planned neighbourhoods, and the current compensation system is insufficient.

Most environmental justice research focuses on the disproportionate environmental impact that affects lower income groups or ethnic and social minorities. This concept arose in the seventies, in the United States, with a marked connotation of a social movement but which has currently led to a more scientific and institutional position (^{Laurian, 2007}; ^{Moreno, 2008}), whose best example is the creation of the Office for Environmental Justice in 1992, as well as the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council in 1993, by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States. According to ^{Wenz (1988)}, environmental justice is carried out when people get what they deserve or what is owed to them, then the key lies on estimating what every individual deserves or is owed to, establishing or valuing allocations impartially.

The environmental justice paradigm must pursue equitable distribution, considering the negative environmental effects as well as the positive implications and equitable distribution of impacts (^{Ramírez et al., 2015}). This allows to infer that environmental justice will also be influenced by cultural aspects, standard of living, empowerment, and some others (^{Ramirez et al., 2015}). Likewise, ^{Ramírez et al. (2015)} say that environmental justice is linked to the unequal distribution of environmental ills and access to resources, but, at the same time, the authors put on stage a new paradigm of environmental justice, speaking of the unequal distribution of social resilience, identifying environmental damage with socially constructed disasters.

In this sense, socio-environmental justice encompasses the components of non-discrimination of environmental benefits and damages, and the participatory decision-making mechanisms that can enable an equitable distribution of those among a justice community made up of localized, current, and future entities, which can have unequal rights and obligations (^{Moreno, 2008}).

For this reason, according to ^{Ramírez et al. (2015)}, environmental justice is important not only for human beings, but also for non-humans, since both people and the environment are affected, which is why leaving environmental justice aside can lead to the destruction of ecosystems and the loss of quality of life. Likewise, it demonstrates that it is imperative to study a particular area and to verify its compliance with regulatory provisions on environmental matters in order to ensure the equitable distribution of environmental impacts. Also, it is vital to know and resolve differences or conflicts arising from the implementation of measures that affect a specific social group in both environmental, health, economic, and social terms.

Participation is fundamental in the socio-environmental justice approach, since, according to ^{Mora (2019)}, a participatory process would be forged in which the weight of values ​​and uncertainties would be accepted and incorporated into the dialogue of knowledge among all interested citizens. Citizens contribute with their knowledge, their understanding of the case, and their resources, generating the idea that progress can only be made through a committed dialogue and the construction of reciprocal trust. It privileges and transmits ideas of dialogue, shared responsibility, effectiveness, and consistency within a system whose extreme complexity is recognized.

Social vulnerability

The concept of social vulnerability is another important concept to consider and analyse in perspective of the losses caused on the individuals affected. According to ^{Pizarro (2001)}, there are two explanatory components: on the one hand, the insecurity and defencelessness experienced by communities, families, and individuals in their living conditions as a result of the impact caused by some type of economic-social event of a traumatic nature; and on the other hand, the management of resources and the strategies that communities, families, and individuals use to face the effects of that event.

In addition to this, social vulnerability is made up of sociodemographic and economic factors that influence the level of risk faced by women and men, as well as communities in the face of disasters. Social vulnerability is the product of inequalities, and its repercussions are distributed in accordance to how a community is socially divided by gender. Some people are more vulnerable than others due to their limited levels of resilience, and, consequently, the population ends up suffering the most from the effects of disasters, directly and indirectly. By linking the characteristics of the population (poverty, age groups, minorities, the disabled, and gender) with social vulnerability, risks for people are intertwined because of their disadvantaged conditions (^{Granados, 2017}).

As ^{Cutter & Finch (2008)} argue, social vulnerability measures the level of sensitivity of the population to risks, such as their ability to respond and recover from the effects of hazards. They point out that the characteristics of the population and social groups determine their level of incidence in the face of natural hazards and influence their ability to respond and recover adequately. They recognize that ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender, as well as age, migration, and home ownership are substantive characteristics in determining vulnerable populations.

On the other hand, urban environmental vulnerability is growing with greater exposure in a context of increases in extreme hydrometeorological events. Most studies on climate change recognize that the effects of climate and climate change will affect the poorest and most vulnerable populations to a much greater degree, and they also identify the very fragile conditions of vulnerability of the poorest populations. From a sustainability perspective, risk levels are high for low-income urban residents who reside in hazardous locations and lack the resources and options to change their vulnerability (^{Jordan et al., 2012}; ^{Margulis, 2016}). In addition, according to ^{Winchester (2006)}, these residents are also the most affected by disasters and suffer the loss of major assets, such as housing.

For this reason, the development of new infrastructure plays a prominent role in strategies to mitigate this environmental vulnerability and to facilitate the adaptation of people to its effects (^{Jordan et al., 2012}). Economic analyses show the potential magnitude of the impacts that climate change could have for the most vulnerable, widening inequalities (^{Margulis, 2016}).

Similarly, vulnerability is a component in a geographical space to a threat, taking into account that a deterioration exists only where there is vulnerability and depends on its degree of exposure, protection, and the reaction in terms of recovery (^{Alberto, 2007}). Vulnerability should be reviewed as a systemic, multiscale, multitemporal, and multifactorial condition, just like the danger given by the dynamism of conditions (^{Huape et al., 2021}; ^{Magaña, 2004}).

Therefore, this association of factors or processes that determine the condition of vulnerability are addressed and divided into five dimensions:

In this way, socio-environmental vulnerability occurs in the intersection of social and environmental vulnerability, closely linked to the coexistence of humans with the environment. This causes vulnerability of ecosystems with anthropogenic activities added to the urban areas, thus exposing society to unfavourable environmental conditions (^{Alberto, 2007}; ^{Huape et al., 2021}).

Taking into account the importance of assessing the vulnerability and the magnitude of inequalities generated by the urban planning, this research estimated the economic losses that a family suffers when their home is flooded, aiming to show that the individual costs are very high and that the authorities must seek long-term solutions to the constant flooding and waterlogging occurred to a considerable number of residents in Sinaloa.

This work used a qualitative approach where interviews were conducted with Civil Protection personnel to find out the most important risk areas, as well as the preventive actions taken by those in charge, according to the identification they had already made. In addition, 160 questionnaires were applied to estimate losses of goods (furniture, clothing, etc.) as well as to obtain a record of the repair expenses made by those affected. In a complementary way, an engineering technical evaluation of the minimum costs faced by a house that is flooded from 50 cm is presented, which puts into perspective the real costs of the deficient infrastructure and planning, since the expenses are not a complete indicator of the repair costs and losses, namely: (1) most families only fix the most essential damages and (2) most of them do not have an estimated value of the total losses. Likewise, some families defer the expenses through several years, given the lack of financial resources and the inexistent insurance in most cases. It is important to note that in the case of families which suffered frequent floods, the humidity is never completely eradicated, thus time to time there are new walls to repair, mentioned the dwellers. Finally, it is of vital importance to incorporate the patrimonial loss into the analysis when living in a high-risk flooding area, since this fact reduces the market value of their homes and perpetuates their situation of inequality and social vulnerability.

Due to limited financial resources, it was not possible to cover all neighbourhoods (or communities) which have experienced floods in the cities analysed. The areas chosen are those which have had high levels of damage and where flooding have occurred more than once. The survey included two neighbourhoods in Los Mochis, two in Mazatlán, and four in Culiacán. It is difficult to determine the size of the sample with respect to the total population of those dwellers affected yearly, since there are no official data on it. The surveys were carried out during March, April, and May 2022 and included only houses that had been flooded at least one time and could provide information on the damage occurred. The confidentiality of the information was guaranteed to the participants, so the results are disclosed, avoiding any data that identifies the people who participated in the surveys.

As a summary, the rest of this work is organized as follows: after this introduction, in the second section the materials and methods are presented, including the description of the sample and the applied instrument; the third section shows the analysis of the survey results, as well as the estimates of losses; in the fourth section a brief discussion is presented; and the last section offers the conclusions.

Sample

As stated in the introduction, this project covers the urban areas of Mazatlán, Los Mochis, and Culiacán. For all the cities, the respective heads of the Civil Protection system provided lists of the neighbourhoods that are at risk of flooding. There are at least 25 in Los Mochis, 30 in Mazatlán, and 80 in Culiacán, only in the urban area; this is, rural communities are excluded. Some of the neighbourhoods at risk are old settlements carrying the problem through many years, such as the Magisterial in Los Mochis, Jacarandas in Mazatlán, 6 de Enero and Infonavit Humaya in Culiacán.

Note that given the high number of vulnerable areas and that the level of affectations varies a lot, it was discretionally decided to take neighbourhoods that have suffered from significant flooding or whose problem has persisted in the long term. Table 1 shows the neighbourhoods by city and the reasons to include them in the sample. It is important to note that some of the study areas correspond to old neighbourhoods that began with irregular settlements, as mentioned by the director of Civil Protection in Culiacán, so the same settlers could be considered part of the initial problem. However, there are also neighbourhoods that are part of real estate projects, which have had serious flooding problems anyway.

From the neighbourhoods studied, those affected on more than one occasion can be easily identified because the houses show watermarks. In addition, on visual exploration there are noticeable modifications to the entrances that people make to protect themselves from the water, for example, erecting fences at the entrance, with steps on both sides to enter and exit. In the Jacarandas neighbourhood in Mazatlán, a house has a wall around the house almost the same height as the house to protect it from the water. Also, modifications can be observed in the Magisterial neighbourhood in Los Mochis, the Estero in Mazatlán, and in the 6 de Enero in Culiacán (see annexes for pictures).

It is also important to remark that not all the houses in the same neighbourhood are affected, which also makes it difficult to quantify the number of dwellings damaged. In addition, since there are no official quantifications per flood event, it is difficult to determine the population from which the sample was taken. Certainly, there are records of aid beneficiaries from the federal government, but not all affected people receive aid, and it is usually aimed at those areas of low income, or those with worse damages or depending on the process to declare a disaster zone, as it used to happen with the Fonden (a special spending section to attend disasters in Mexico). Hence, when carrying out the study, it is recognized that the sample taken is important, but not statistically significant. It is also recognized that not all homes suffer the same level of flooding; therefore, in the technical analysis of repair costs, scenarios with different levels of affectation are also presented.

The instrument is included as an annex at the end of this document. The general items included in the questions are listed below:

The information collected in the questionnaires was complemented with the technical estimate of the repair costs of a flooded house, to later obtain an approximate total cost of property losses per neighbourhood in the most recent event.

Quantification of expenses and losses

Recognizing that it is difficult to quantify the economic loss, an estimate was made for the damaged furniture reported. The prices were checked at Coppel.com website, since this company is a common choice for people in Sinaloa, given that the store offers differed payments, and it is a very well-established local brand, with accessible prices. The prices of appliances for the lowest price and the highest price are presented in Table 9. According to this, a house that has lost all the furniture and belongings included here would have to spend at least $40 747.00¹ to replace their furniture, without counting clothes, shoes, jewellery, carpets, and vehicles.

Considering the number of people who reported having lost some type of furniture from the frequencies in Table 6, in fourth and fifth column, the total spending is obtained. Once the total spending is obtained in Table 9, it is divided by the number of dwellings surveyed (180), thus an average of $15 738 is obtained with low prices and $170 659 taking the highest. This average is of course quite dispersed, since not all houses lost the same items, and the prices are also very different. There were even families that only reported the loss of a piece of furniture, or just clothes and shoes, while other households lost everything, including vehicles. On the other hand, the loss of clothing and shoes can be very large since, as can be observed in Table 2, most households have several members; and if we consider that only a complete outfit, such as shoes, shirt, pants, and underwear, can add up to more than $1500, the loss of several clothing outfits for the whole family undoubtedly represents a large loss. Again, the difference in prices makes it very difficult to estimate; for example, there are pairs of shoes going from $150 to thousands of Mexican pesos, and the same occurs with clothing.

Another type of affectation was the loss of food, thus 85% of those surveyed said that they lost their food due to lack of electricity in the days after the flood, because their refrigerator broke down or because the water reached a high level in their living place. Also, 85% of people had accumulation of garbage and mud in their home and 100% required cleaning. Regarding the water supply, in most cases the service was reestablished quickly, and only 30% said they had had subsequent problems.

To estimate the average losses in clothing, food, and cleaning supplies per household, data from the National Survey of Income Expenditure (ENIGH) carried out by INEGI in its 2020 version was used. This survey publishes estimated quarterly expenses per household in the aforementioned items, as shown in Table 10 below.

Considering that food includes perishable and non-perishable items, a third of the quarterly value was taken to account for a loss of one month's food purchases, that is, $4536. In the clothing item, one year's expense is considered, since clothing is a durable good, and families can lose clothes that they have bought for a long time; the corresponding expense for a year is $5446. The cleaning items are included because 100% of the respondents reported to have cleaned their homes and had to replace household utensils. Once again, the spending of a whole year is added, taking into account that they lost their inventories accumulated. The total cost goes up to $10 685. The sum of these four elements, namely, food, clothing, and cleaning items and home utensils, is $20 668.

Adding all the reported losses, it is evident that the economic loss is quite large; for instance, a family losing all the average report of belongings, plus clothing, footwear, food, and cleaning and other utensils, shown in Table 9, lost at least $36 406, which is the average sum provided above, considering a cheap price for the furniture ($15 738 + $20 668). The cost estimate of losing a vehicle is excluded, but it is understood that they represent considerable sums. Additionally, the existence of insurance does not exempt from additional costs, or the impossibility of recovering the full value of the car, and sometimes it can be difficult to get the insurance payment.

In addition, those affected were asked about the expenses incurred to repair the damage to their homes. In this case, the answers were very varied, which is why intervals of the amounts are presented in Table 11.

The most frequent spending averages are up to $50 000, with 38% of those surveyed. Adding the amounts reported, an average expense per dwelling was obtained, which is shown at the last row of the table; thus, the highest average expense is for Los Mochis with $40 850, and in Culiacán was similar with $36 850. In Mazatlán the average was much lower ($21 300). Also, people commented that this only counts the losses of one event, but there are families that have repurchased their furniture more than once, and that they must carry out continuous repairs, as mentioned above.

It should be emphasized that this estimate considers only approximate expenses, since most of the families commented that they do not have records of expenses, and many times the cost is lower because they do the repair themselves. It was also observed that there is no proportion between the damage to the houses and the costs of repair, since many families do not repair their house given their income level. Thus, inequality is perpetuated in terms of well-being, not only due to the economic loss of families, but also due to the loss of well-being that they are unable to recover given their income situation. In this sense, it is important to highlight that many families experience constant nervousness with every rain, especially families that have had the problem for years, such as in the Magisterial neighbourhood of Los Mochis, La Estero y Jacarandas in Mazatlán, and Valle Alto/Villas del Río, 6 de Enero and Infonavit Humaya in Culiacán.

Given that the estimates based on repair costs per home are highly variable, a repair estimate for damage to a dwelling was requested to an architect office in three scenarios: with flooding of 50 cm, 1 m, and 1.5 m (The estimate is presented as an annex). The estimation is for a standard house with two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom, and front and rear patio on a 6.5 m X 16 m lot. Of course, many dwellings are bigger, but it is part of de difficulties faced for the estimation. The repair estimate includes items such as cleaning, demolition of flattening, curing, and new flattening, tiles, as well as the repair of electrical and sanitary installations. The estimation is shown in Table 12.

This estimate shows that market costs much higher than those reported by the participants. In the lower level considered (0.5 m), with an estimated repair cost of $74 000, multiplied by 160 dwellings, the total is $11 840 000, but many of the homes visited presented higher water levels, while others present lower water levels.

In another question, they were asked if there was any pending repair. In this regard, 54% said “yes” but reported that they do not have the resources, 40% said “no”, and 6% did not answer. Likewise, they were asked if they have an estimate of the pending repairs, and the majority (65%) said they did not know. Of those who did respond, the average amount required to repair their home was more than $20 000.

Moreover, in the questionnaire people were asked the types of aid received by the government when they were flooded. In this matter, only 16% of the families received some type of government assistance. Regarding the types of government aid, some people reported having received financial aid of between $1500 and $5000, or furniture such as a refrigerator or mattresses, while others received only food. In the case of Valle Alto and Villas del Río in Culiacán and the Fraccionamiento Las Mañanitas in Los Mochis, no one received government support, but they did receive housing insurance compensation from Infonavit. Regarding the compensation that people consider fair, they responded that all their homes and belongings should be repaired or that they should be given an average of $40 000. Some commented that they should also be exempted from paying property taxes.

Regarding property loss, they were also asked if they consider that their home has lost value due to the flood events. In this respect, 80% answered “yes”, and the percentages of value-loss are highly variable. Many commented knowing neighbours who have sold their homes at a very low price, and others considered that they cannot even sell their homes.