Average annual loss (AAL) is traditionally used as the basis of assessing flood risk and evaluating risk mitigation measures. This research presents an improved implementation to estimate building-specific AAL, with the flood hazard of a building represented by the Gumbel extreme value distribution. AAL is then calculated by integrating the area under the overall loss-exceedance probability curve using trapezoidal Riemann sums. This implementation is compared with existing AAL estimations from flood risk assessment. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to examine the variability in AAL results based on depth-damage function (DDF) choice. To demonstrate the methodology, a one-story single-family residence is selected to assess the financial benefits of freeboard (i.e., increasing lowest floor elevations). Results show that 1 ft. of freeboard results in annual flood risk reduction of over $1,000, while 4 ft of freeboard results in annual flood risk reduction of nearly $2,000. The sensitivity result suggests that the DDF selection is critical, as a large proportion of flood loss is counted below the top of the first floor. The findings of this paper will enhance DDF selection, improve flood loss estimates, encourage homeowners and communities to invest in flood mitigation, and provide government decision-makers with improved information when considering building code changes.

Leading flood loss estimation models include Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Hazus, FEMA’s Flood Assessment Structure Tool (FAST), and (U.S.) Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Flood Impact Analysis (HEC-FIA), with each requiring different data input. No research to date has compared the resulting outcomes from such models at a neighborhood scale. This research examines the building and content loss estimates by Hazus Level 2, FAST, and HEC-FIA, over a levee-protected census block in Metairie, in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Building attribute data in National Structure Inventory (NSI) 2.0 are compared against “best available data” (BAD) collected at the individual building scale from Google Street View, Jefferson Parish building inventory, and 2019 National Building Cost Manual, to assess the sensitivity of input building inventory selection. Results suggest that use of BAD likely enhances flood loss estimation accuracy over existing reliance on default data in the software or from a national data set that generalizes over a broad scale. Although the three models give similar mean (median) building and content loss, Hazus Level 2 results diverge from those produced by FAST and HEC-FIA at the individual building level. A statistically significant difference in mean (median) building loss exists, but no significant difference is found in mean (median) content loss, between building inventory input (i.e., NSI 2.0 vs BAD), but both the building and content loss vary at the individual building scale due to difference in building-inventory-reported foundation height, foundation type, number of stories, replacement cost, and content cost. Moreover, building loss estimation also differs significantly by depth-damage function (DDF), for flood depths corresponding with the longest return periods, with content loss differing significantly by DDF at all return periods tested, from 10 to 500 years. Knowledge of the extent of estimated differences aids in understanding the degree of uncertainty in flood loss estimation. Much like the real estate industry uses comparable home values to appraise a home, flood loss planners should use multiple models to estimate flood-related losses. Moreover, results from this study can be used as a baseline for assessing losses from other hazards, thereby enhancing protection of human life and property.

Construction with freeboard—vertical height of a structure above the minimum required—is commonly accepted as a sound investment for flood hazard mitigation. However, determining the optimal height of freeboard poses a major decision problem. This research introduces a life-cycle benefit-cost analysis (LCBCA) approach for optimizing freeboard height for a new, single-family residence, while incorporating uncertainty, and, in the case of insured homes, considering the costs from losses, insurance, and freeboard (if any) to the homeowner and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) separately. Using a hypothetical, case study home in Metairie, Louisiana and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers design depth-damage functions for generic inland flooding, results show that adding 2 ft of freeboard at the time of construction might be considered the optimal option given that it yields the highest net benefit, but the highest net benefit-cost ratio occurs for the 1 ft freeboard. Even if flood loss reduction is not considered when adding freeboard, the savings in annual insurance premiums alone are sufficient to recover the construction costs paid by the homeowner if at least one foot of freeboard is included at construction. Collectively, these results based on conservative assumptions suggest that at the time of construction, even a small amount of freeboard provides a huge savings for the homeowner and (especially) for the financially-strapped National Flood Insurance Program. For community planners, the results suggest that wise planning with reasonable expectations on the front end makes for a more sustainable community.