An analysis of the costs of resilient reinstatement of flood affected properties: A case study of the 2009 flood event in Cockermouth

Rotimi Joseph, Professor David Proverbs, Professor Jessica Lamond, Peter Wassell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)279-293
Number of pages14
JournalStructural Survey
Volume29
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Aug 2011

Fingerprint

repair
cost
analysis
flooding
floodplain
methodology
cost-benefit

Keywords

  • Resilience measure
  • Floods
  • Flood protection
  • Intangible impacts
  • Reinstatement
  • Cost benefit analysis
  • Tangible impacts

Cite this

Joseph, Rotimi ; Proverbs, Professor David ; Lamond, Professor Jessica ; Wassell, Peter . / An analysis of the costs of resilient reinstatement of flood affected properties : A case study of the 2009 flood event in Cockermouth. In: Structural Survey. 2011 ; Vol. 29, No. 4. pp. 279-293.
@article{6532bd0042db46e6b4fd19712fe701de,
title = "An analysis of the costs of resilient reinstatement of flood affected properties: A case study of the 2009 flood event in Cockermouth",
abstract = "PurposeRecently, 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/approachSecondary 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.FindingsThe 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/valueThe 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.",
keywords = "Resilience measure, Floods, Flood protection, Intangible impacts, Reinstatement, Cost benefit analysis, Tangible impacts",
author = "Rotimi Joseph and Proverbs, {Professor David} and Lamond, {Professor Jessica} and Peter Wassell",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1108/02630801111162350",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "279--293",
journal = "Structural Survey",
issn = "0263-080X",
number = "4",

}

An analysis of the costs of resilient reinstatement of flood affected properties : A case study of the 2009 flood event in Cockermouth. / Joseph, Rotimi; Proverbs, Professor David ; Lamond, Professor Jessica ; Wassell, Peter .

In: Structural Survey, Vol. 29, No. 4, 30.08.2011, p. 279-293.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of the costs of resilient reinstatement of flood affected properties

T2 - A case study of the 2009 flood event in Cockermouth

AU - Joseph, Rotimi

AU - Proverbs, Professor David

AU - Lamond, Professor Jessica

AU - Wassell, Peter

PY - 2011/8/30

Y1 - 2011/8/30

N2 - PurposeRecently, 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/approachSecondary 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.FindingsThe 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/valueThe 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.

AB - PurposeRecently, 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/approachSecondary 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.FindingsThe 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/valueThe 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.

KW - Resilience measure

KW - Floods

KW - Flood protection

KW - Intangible impacts

KW - Reinstatement

KW - Cost benefit analysis

KW - Tangible impacts

U2 - 10.1108/02630801111162350

DO - 10.1108/02630801111162350

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 279

EP - 293

JO - Structural Survey

JF - Structural Survey

SN - 0263-080X

IS - 4

ER -