Diseño bajo la Normatividad ISO 9001:2008

Flood risk management at the property level has become significant due to the increasing risk of residential properties and the severe impact of these floods on householders (DEFRA, 2011). Whilst large scale flood defences can be extremely effective in reducing widespread flood risk, such developments are costly, both in terms of time and financial resources (Pitt, 2008). Consequently, cost benefit analysis does not always yield a favourable result for large scale defence schemes, and the recent spate of devastating floods has called for an increased consideration of PLFP measures to curtail the extra demand of flood defences (Pitt, 2008).

Unlike large scale flood defences, property level flood protection measures are often temporary, demountable, and simple to install products (Wingfield et al., 2005). Such measures can be cost effective, easy (and quick) to deploy and can help to prevent or slow floodwater ingress (Bowker, 2007; DEFRA, 2008). Two main types of measures are used for property level protection – resistance and resilient measures.

Resistance flood products

As the name implies, resistance products are those that prevent or minimise the ingress of flood water into a property, thereby reducing the extent of damage caused to the building fabric and contents (Bowker, 2007; DEFRA, 2008). By sealing up entry points to a property, resistance products operate as a barrier between the property and flood water. In practice, two categories of resistant measures can exist – temporary and permanent measures (Bowker, 2007). While temporary or demountable products are usually designed to protect building apertures such as doors, windows and airbricks, permanent measures include barriers protecting one or more properties from flooding.

Resistance products either totally prevent floodwater from getting into a property or

“buy time” for the householder to move valuable possessions to safety (DEFRA, 2005).

They tend to be particularly effective for shallow floods (< 0.6m), and can remove or reduce many of the damages caused by flooding. Typical costs for a temporary, demountable property level resistance solution (door and window boards, airbrick and service duct covers) range from £2-4k. However, individual products such as airbrick covers can cost as little as £50, whilst floodgates for door openings start at around £330 (UK Floodgates, 2012).

The costs of more permanent resistance measures (water-proof doors, windows, and airbricks) range from £3-10k for a single property (Bowker, 2007). In terms of cost-effectiveness, it has been found that the correct installation of a total property level solution can reduce the insurance claim costs associated with a flood event by 50-80%

(ABI, 2006; Thurston et al., 2008). In addition, flood resistance packages have been found to be cost-effective for households with an annual chance of flooding of 2% (i.e.

1 in 50 years) or above, with the largest savings being residential properties subjected to an annual risk of flooding of 4% (i.e. 1 in 25 years) or greater as shown in Table 2.6 below (Thurston et al., 2008). While these findings suggest significant benefits of PLFP, they do not account for barriers to greater uptake of such measures or the financial incentivisation of PLFP scheme.

Table 2.6: Benefit-cost ratios for PLFP measures for semi-detached property (Source: ability to minimise flood damages when floodwater actually enters a property (Wingfield et al., 2005; Joseph et al., 2011). Such measures are normally permanent, and include replacing permeable floors with water resistant material (e.g. solid concrete), using waterproof wall plasters, replacing kitchen and bathroom units with plastic units, and raising electrical sockets (ABI, 2004; Bowker, 2007). Since the cost and disruption associated with the installation of resilience measures can be significant (e.g. £10-30k), they are often implemented during major renovation or repair works.

Resilience packages are considered to be more effective for deeper floods (0.6-0.9m) as corresponding resistant products are often overwhelmed at such depths (Thurston et al., 2008). In general, the higher cost of installing resilience measures makes them less cost beneficial than resistance products. However, in common with resistance products, implementing resilience measures can be worthwhile where the annual chance of flooding is greater than 2% (1 in 50 years). For buildings not already in need of repair or refurbishment, resilience measures are only cost-effective in areas with a 4% or greater annual chance of flooding (Thurston et al., 2008).

Uptake of resistance and resilience products

The current uptake level of resistance and resilience measures is very low (DEFRA, 2008, Kazmierczak and Bischard, 2010). A study found that only 16% of households

and 32% of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in areas of significant flood risk have taken practical steps to reduce their exposure to flood damage (Thurston et al., 2008). In addition, the reluctance of the public to contribute towards the cost of protection is further revealed by Werritty et al. (2007) where just over half of survey respondents were unwilling to pay additional council tax to fund flood protection measures, and even amongst those willing to pay, only 8.5% were prepared to pay £100 or more.

In assessing the willingness of homeowners living in flood risk areas in England to undertake property level protection, Kazmierczak and Bischard (2010) found that almost half of homeowners were concerned about climate change consequences on their homes, and were prepared to install airbrick covers and door guards for their homes.

The median willingness to pay amount per household was under £100, which seems very low; even lower than the £200 that RPA (2004) reported as the sum of money householders in England were willing to pay to avoid the health impact of flooding.

Another survey involving over thousand residents in Northern Ireland found that 74%

of them were willing to make some adjustment to their properties to protect against flood damage, including tiled floors with rugs, resistant frame doors, and skirting boards. Overall, 65% of respondents were willing to pay towards flood protection measures, but just 16% were willing to pay the full costs and 49% were willing to contribute towards some of the costs of PLFP measures (Consumer Council, 2013). A similar survey of Dutch residents found that nearly two thirds of homeowners would be willing to invest in flood mitigation measures (e.g. water barriers) in exchange for discounted flood insurance with the mean willing to pay value being almost €120 per year (Botzen et al., 2009). Though this finding confirms the public’s interest to take-up flood protection, the WTP value is low and there was a heavy preference for traditional sandbags as the majority (68%) of the people were willing to buy these products.

Common reasons for the low uptake of property level protection include the fact that homeowners often underestimate the risk of flooding of their properties, and are unaware of their responsibility in protecting their properties (Werritty et al., 2007). This problem has strengthened the need for flood education campaigns and, flood risk communication has been shown to be a source of motivation to individuals to undertake precautionary measures for flood events (Kreibich et al., 2011; Koerth et al., 2013).

Other barriers to promoting PLFP is concern about the cost of implementing such measures are the physical appearance of such measures on their property (DEFRA,

2008; ABI, 2011c). Moreover, the low level of awareness of PLFP products is a major obstacle to the use of such measures (Kazmierczak and Bischard, 2010); some property owners are generally unaware of the options, benefits and cost of PLFP measures (DEFRA, 2008). Table 2.7 shows some of the common flood resistance and resilience products on the PLFP market, including basic products such as airbrick covers.

Resilience options, including raising door threshold and resilient flooring are permanent measures.

Flood guards on doors or windows ●

Free-standing barriers ●

Raised electrical sockets, phones, and TV points ●

Promoting the uptake of PLFP

To increase the uptake of protection measures, there is the need for homeowners to realise their personal responsibility to prepare for floods, and even greater need to promote awareness of property flood mitigation measures (Thurston et al., 2008). This message is also echoed by Pitt (2008) after reviewing the 2007 UK floods. In addition, recent findings from surveyed residents in Germany has highlighted that, providing homeowners with information on the effectiveness of flood mitigation measures and advice on the implementation of these measures can lead to increased flood precautionary behaviour (Bubeck et al., 2013). In carrying these messages forward,

consumer organisations including the NFF and SFF in the UK have taken up the responsibility of advocating the uptake of PLFP measures. Although flood education could transform public perception to participate in flood protection, lessons learned from previous studies have shown that such campaigns coupled with grants or incentives to households are key measures to greater uptake protection measures (DEFRA, 2008).

In England, DEFRA has recently incentivised PLFP schemes to both help promote the benefits of innovative flood protection measures and to encourage further take-up (JBA, 2012a). This was a major initiative involving £5.2m projects delivered in two phases from 2009 to 2011, with over a thousand properties protected in 63 communities. The funding for individual property was limited to £5,700 and covered the costs of a property survey (£500), administration costs (£700), and the protection measures themselves (£4,500). Although the installed measures have not yet been tested by a flood event, the lessons learned from the scheme suggest that it has been successful with particularly high levels of participation; there was a 93% scheme uptake. Evaluation of the projects using six case studies, to understand whether they would have been funded under the Partnership Funding approach, showed that the project achieved a benefit cost ratio of 5 to 1.

In Scotland some local councils promote the uptake of PLFP measures by providing subsidies to residents. The Scottish Border Council (SBC) and the Dumfries and Galloway council have been exemplary in this initiative; these councils provide discount schemes on a range of protection products to householders and businesses whose properties are at risk of flooding. The maximum subsidy allocated to individual properties is £650, and the savings on basic products is 63%. The savings on floodgates are a little higher and are 66% for medium size (i.e. 975mm X 1405mm) under the SBC scheme and 76% for regular size (i.e. 890mm X 975mm) under the Dumfries and Galloway scheme (SBC, 2011).

Several overseas cases also highlight the need to incentivise flood protection products in order to promote take-up. For example, the Toronto City Council (Canada) ran an existing subsidy program to homeowners to reduce their risk of basement flooding due to the increasing flood risk related to climate change (Toronto City Council, 2012). The financial subsidy provided to homeowners is up to $3,200 per property to install PLFP

measures including back-water valves and sump pumps (Sandink, 2013). In addition, several studies in Germany strongly advocate encouraging the uptake of flood precautionary measures based on their usefulness, particularly, following the high profile floods in Europe (Grothmann and Reusswig, 2006; Bubeck et al., 2012).

Evidence of the effectiveness of flood precautionary measures in reducing the extent of damage has been shown; households with flood mitigation measures during the 1995 floods suffered less damage by far in comparison with the 1993 flooding (Bubeck et al., 2012). However, there exists a barrier to the wider use of flood protection measures which is the issue of affordability. In view of this challenge, the option of financial incentives to spur the uptake of flood mitigation measures has been recommended, and Bubeck et al. (2012) have also suggested incentives in the form of reduced insurance premiums which could help to improve the generally low uptake of flood cover and help reduce financial losses. On top of this, more recent flood in Germany has heightened the pressure for flood mitigation measures, and Meyer et al. (2013) has urged for a state subsidisation programme including construction or refurbishment to houses to withstand flooding.