An analysis of the costs of resilient reinstatement of flood affected properties

Abstract

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.

Assessing the value of intangible benefits of property level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures

“…Thurston et al, (2008) asserted that a key to reducing impacts of flooding on household is the take-up of property level flood risk adaptation measures both in new developments and as part of repair after flood events. Property level flood risk adaptation measures refer to all actions available to homeowners to adapt their properties to flood risk (Joseph et al, 2011b) and involves the process of adjustment of households behaviours to actual or expected flood risk in order to reduce its impacts on households (IPCC, 2012). These include collective process of either keeping water out -resistance measures or allowing the water into the property but reducing the damage caused to the fabric of the property -resilience measures (ABI, 2003, Thurston et al, 2008, Beddoes and Booth, 2011, Wassell et al, 2009, Joseph et al, 2011b, Warren et al, 2011, JBA, 2012, Royal Haskoning, 2012, thereby allowing quick reinstatement of the property after flood water has receded.…”

“…Property level flood risk adaptation measures refer to all actions available to homeowners to adapt their properties to flood risk (Joseph et al, 2011b) and involves the process of adjustment of households behaviours to actual or expected flood risk in order to reduce its impacts on households (IPCC, 2012). These include collective process of either keeping water out -resistance measures or allowing the water into the property but reducing the damage caused to the fabric of the property -resilience measures (ABI, 2003, Thurston et al, 2008, Beddoes and Booth, 2011, Wassell et al, 2009, Joseph et al, 2011b, Warren et al, 2011, JBA, 2012, Royal Haskoning, 2012, thereby allowing quick reinstatement of the property after flood water has receded. In addition, property can be adapted to flood risk by relocating expensive items from ground floor to upper floor or by registering for flood alert warning (Walker et al, 2008, Priest et al, 2008.…”

“…Further, research by different stakeholders: practitioners (Flood Repair Forum, 2006) academics (Soetanto et al, 2008, Joseph et al, 2011b, Government, (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003, Bowker et al, 2007, Thurston et al, 2008 and the insurance industry (ABI, 2003, ABI, 2006, Wassell et al, 2009 has examined the costs and effectiveness of installing property level resistance and resilience measures. To some extent, much of the previous research was not directed at helping individual homeowners" decision making and so not appropriate for that purpose.…”

Grass-root preparedness against potential flood risk among residential and commercial property holders

“…Resilience measures aim to reduce the consequence of flooding by, for example, facilitating the early recovery of buildings, infrastructure or other vulnerable sites following a flood event (Joseph et al, 2011). Flood resilience measures reduce the cost of repairs after deep and prolonged floods, and can speed up restoration times.…”

Improving the Uptake of Flood Resilience at the Individual Property Level

“…In a review of the international literature on resilience, the findings are grouped in terms of four barrier types: informational, financial, emotional and timing issues [8]; these, in turn, impacted variously on components within the decision making process such as the necessary awareness and perception of risk; ownership of the risk; knowledge of solutions; resources to implement solutions (including financial issues); and belief that the measures would work. It has been found that, although resilient reinstatement did cost more than traditional repair, this approach did significantly reduce future repair costs (assuming a subsequent flood were to take place) [9].…”