The long term psychological effect of the distress and trauma caused by the memory of damage and losses associated with flooding of communities remains an under researched impact of flooding. This is particularly important for communities that are likely to be repeatedly flooded where levels of mental health disorder will damage long term resilience to future flooding. There are a variety of factors that affect the prevalence of mental health disorders in the aftermath of flooding including pre-existing mental health, socio-economic factors and flood severity. However previous research has tended to focus on the short term impacts immediately following the flood event and much less focus has been given to the longer terms effects of flooding. Understanding of factors affecting the longer term mental health outcomes for flooded households is critical in order to support communities in improving social resilience. Hence, the aim of this study was to explore the characteristics associated with psychological distress and mental health deterioration over the longer term. The research examined responses from a postal survey of households flooded during the 2007 flood event across England. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and binomial logistic regression were applied to data representing household characteristics, flood event characteristics and post-flood stressors and coping strategies. These factors were related to reported measures of stress, anxiety, depression and mental health deterioration. The results showed that household income, depth of flooding; having to move out during reinstatement and mitigating actions are related to the prevalence of psycho-social symptoms in previously flooded households. In particular relocation and household income were the most predictive factors. The practical implication of these findings for recovery after flooding are: to consider the preferences of households in terms of the need to move out during restorative building works and the financial resource constraints that may lead to severe mental hardship. In addition the findings suggest that support with installing mitigation measures may lead to improved mental health outcomes for communities at risk.

Purpose -Recently, the focus of UK and European flood risk management policy has been towards promoting the uptake of property level flood adaptation measures. Despite this focus, the take-up of property level flood adaptation measures (both resilient and resistant) remains very low. One of the apparent barriers to uptake is the cost of installing such measures. This study aims to investigate the cost of adopting resilient reinstatement measures by considering a small number of actual properties that were flooded in Cockermouth during 2009. Design/methodology/approach -Secondary data obtained from a loss adjusting company provides the basis for analysis. The data take into consideration the cost benefit of resilient repair, assuming the same properties were flooded again. The traditional reinstatement costs were established as the actual cost of putting the properties back in a like-for-like manner while resilient reinstatement costs were established by creating new resilient repair schedules based on recommended good practice. Findings -The results of the study show that the percentage extra cost for resilient reinstatement over traditional repair cost ranged from 23 to 58 per cent with a mean of 34 per cent depending on the house type. However, while resilient repairs were found to be more expensive than traditional (i.e. like-for-like) methods, they were found to significantly reduce the repair costs assuming a subsequent flood were to take place. Resilient flood mitigation measures seem most promising and, given repeat flooding, will help in limiting the cost of repairs up to as much as 73 per cent for properties with a 20 per cent annual chance of flooding, which indicates that the up-front investment would be recovered following a single subsequent flood event.Originality/value -The uptake of resilient reinstatement among the floodplain property owners in the UK is very low and one of the reasons for the low uptake is lack of understanding of the cost and benefit of adopting such measures. While there have been previous studies towards investigating the costs of resilient reinstatement, it is believed that this is the first to use real claims data and information to analyse the tangible costs/benefits of resilient reinstatement.

Flood events have far-reaching consequences, not only in economic or financial terms but also in social and health-related impacts. There is a growing body of research that suggests that property-level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures have the potential to benefit homeowners by reducing the impact of flooding on households. Emphasis has, therefore, been placed on the implementation of PLFRA measures, and yet despite this, the take-up among the at-risk residents in England is low. One of the reasons identified in the literature is that homeowners do not clearly recognise the benefits of the measures. This research uses a survey of households affected by the summer 2007 flood event in England to investigate the perception of homeowners in connection with the benefits of PLFRA measures. The results highlight that there is a consensus among respondents that implementing adaptation measures has the potential to reduce health-related flood impacts such as worrying, stress and strain between families. However, there was a high level of uncertainty with regard to potential financial benefits from investing in adaptation measures, in the form of premium reduction by insurers. It was evident from the analysis that knowledge of the frequency of future flood events and expected flood damage rated highly among the factors perceived by homeowners to influence the uptake of PLFRA measures. Furthermore, the results show that there is a wide range of opinion among the respondents as to who is responsible for protecting homes against flood risk. For instance, the government flood protection scheme has the potential to provide a confusing message to floodplain residents as to whose responsibility it is to protect properties against flood risk. It is, therefore, recommended that at-risk population should be made aware of the limits of the responsibilities of other stakeholders in the domain of flood risk management at household levels. However, it is anticipated that the introduction of the new UK flood insurance scheme, Flood Re, may help to bring more clarity. There is a need to increase the motivation of homeowners to invest in PLFRA measures, which could be achieved through a range of actions, including the provision of subsidies and incentives, which would help in promoting more sustainable behaviour.

Purpose -There has been a significant increase in flooding in the UK over the past ten years. During this time, Government policy has moved from investment in flood defences towards encouraging property owners to take responsibility for reducing the impact of flooding. One of the ways in which this can be achieved is for homeowners to adapt their properties to flood risk by implementing property level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures. While there has been some attempt to develop an understanding of the benefits of such measures, these previous studies have their limitations in that the intangible benefits have not been fully considered. As such, there remains a need for further development of these studies towards developing a more comprehensive understanding of PLFRA measures. It is against this background the purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual cost benefit analysis (CBA) framework for PLFRA measure. This framework brings together the key parameters of the costs and benefits of adapting properties to flood risk including the intangible benefits, which have so far been overlooked in previous studies. Design/methodology/approach -A critical review of the standard methods and existing CBA models of PLFRA measures was undertaken. A synthesis of this literature and the literature on the nature of flooding and measures to reduce and eliminate their impacts provides the basis for the development of a conceptual framework of the costs and benefits of PLFRA measures. Within the developed framework, particular emphasis is placed on the intangible impacts, as these have largely been excluded from previous studies in the domain of PLFRA measures. Findings -The framework provides a systematic way of assessing the costs and benefits of PLFRA measures. A unique feature of the framework is the inclusion of intangible impacts, such as anxiety and ill health, which are known to be difficult to measure. The study proposes to implement one of the stated preference methods (SPM) of valuation to measure these impacts, known as the willingness to pay method, as part of a survey of homeowners. The inclusion of these intangible impacts provides the potential to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the benefit cost ratio (BCR) for different stakeholders. The newly developed CBA conceptual framework includes four principal components: the tangible benefits to insurers; the tangible benefits to the government; the tangible benefits to homeowners; and the intangible benefits to homeowners. Originality/value -This tool offers the potential to support government policy concerned with increasing the uptake of PLFRA measures through increasing the information available to homeowners and thereby supporting the decision-making process.

In the face of increased flooding in the UK, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the ways in which flood experience can affect homeowners' attitude towards taking precautionary measures to protect their homes. This could include investing in flood adaptation measures to reduce likely flood damage and hence exposure to flood risk. This research sought to investigate, the level of awareness, implementation and the costs of resilience measures, from those homeowners who had experienced flood damage to their properties in 2007 summer flooding in England. A questionnaire survey was thus employed to elicit the extent to which flood experience influenced the decision to adopt flood resilient measures during reinstatement works. The findings revealed that some 82% of houses inundated were returned to their pre-incident condition i.e. with no improved resilience to future flooding. It was found that the level of awareness of resilience measures among the respondents was high; however, the level of implementation was quite low. Only 10% of those who indicated that they invested resilience measure actually implemented a full package of the measures. This shows that more needs to be done by flood risk management stakeholders to encourage full uptake of resilience measures. Loss adjusters and surveyors are better placed to advice homeowners of the potential risk reduction measures, which can be implemented during reinstatement period. Further, there is a need for policy development in the form of revising the current Building Regulations for refurbishing or reinstating flood damaged buildings in order to encourage the uptake of resilient reinstatement.