This project resulted in the identification of three main trends.
First, the hypothesis that the most disadvantaged populations would also be the most exposed to natural or anthropogenic risks and the furthest from natural or urban amenities is not as easily verified in the two case studies. The situation is even more complex for La Rochelle, a medium-sized coastal town, where other factors come into play.
A second core result concerns the unequal treatment between territories and their capacities to cope with coastal risks. Following the Xynthia storm, Charron and Aytré had uneven access to the State council; while some used their political leverage, others carried out numerous measures on their own in a domain that was unfamiliar to them. Similarly, populations did not have the same capacity to overcome the disaster, with persisting fears among the Charronnais population, whereas risks appear to have been normalised in Aytré. These results were demonstrated by the interviews conducted among residents and confirmed through legal analysis.
Finally, this last legal approach highlighted three types of inequalities:
- (1) legal inequalities, excluding some people from the local informative or participatory process;
- (2) environmental inequalities, leading in some cases to a reduction in the exposure of one part of the population to risk, while another faces unchanged or aggravated exposure;
- (3) property inequalities, due to an increase in the value of certain assets, particularly those less exposed or better protected from risk, or conversely a devaluation of assets that are more exposed or already damaged.
The INEGALITTO project concludes that the environmental inequalities existing on the coasts studied can be reinforced by risk management strategies in the short and medium run. These strategies, in addition to the French insurance system (national solidarity), may tend to reinforce or at least favour the maintenance of an affluent population on the coast (in the case of the construction of grey defensive structures), without solving the problem of the exposure of these populations to marine hazards, in the long term. On the one hand, the issue is deferred to future generations that will sooner or later have to decide on a new strategy and will have to bear the costs for many years. On the other hand, relocation appears to be a more “cost-effective” solution in the long term, reducing the exposure of the populations concerned and reducing the costs to society (no maintenance or development of protective infrastructures required).