Flood insurance 89
participants are homeowners before the flood. This share declines to 79 per
cent after the flood. 9 per cent state that their homes are still uninhabitable at the time of the survey. 21 per cent own rental properties and some
note a decrease of renters after the flood. The decrease in family names of
multi-family residential buildings indicates that renters, who are typically
dependent upon the decision of landlords to rebuild or not, left the area
after the flood. Their motivation to return is different than in the case of
homeowners who plan to rehabilitate the homes they own.
Flood damages
All respondents note damages to their homes, differentiated according to
minor damage (4 per cent), major damage (70 per cent), and total destruction (26 per cent). 72 per cent were in the process of rehabilitating their
homes at the time of the survey. 13 per cent were building a new home on
the footprint of the previous (demolished) one. Two per cent were rebuilding
on a different property.
Early recovery becomes impossible if homeowners have to demolish
their homes, in some cases after rebuilding them, once a publicly appointed
expert surveyor detects levels of oil contamination dangerous to human
health. 72 per cent reported heating oil usage prior to the flood. 57 per cent
of homes were contaminated with heating oil during the flood. At the time
of the survey, 30 per cent of homes were still contaminated. 24 per cent were
demolished. After the flood, 83 per cent of participants switched to other
energy sources, and 15 per cent still used oil for heating. At the time of the
survey, many respondents had not yet found a solution to the oil problem,
pointing out a lack of financial support and consultation.
Recovery – with and without insurance
The possible influence that insurance has on rebuilding is limited to insured
homeowners. While the majority of survey participants were homeowners,
only 34 per cent of these had flood insurance, which is actually above the
Lower Bavarian average of 30 per cent. The compound flood-oil contamination significantly exacerbated the impact of the disaster and the rebuilding
needs that residents were confronted with. In some cases, insurance carriers dispute the degree of contamination. As a consequence of disputes,
insurance money was paid late or in degrees that was insufficient to cover
actual rebuilding costs. The degree of influence that insurance as a governance mechanism exerts on the recovery process is thus not only limited,
but actually hampers the recovery efforts of insured homeowners. They see
themselves at a disadvantage while their uninsured neighbours are able to
rebuild with governmental funding.
66 per cent of households were informed about the financial support for
uninsured homeowners. Applying for governmental funding was considered
participants are homeowners before the flood. This share declines to 79 per
cent after the flood. 9 per cent state that their homes are still uninhabitable at the time of the survey. 21 per cent own rental properties and some
note a decrease of renters after the flood. The decrease in family names of
multi-family residential buildings indicates that renters, who are typically
dependent upon the decision of landlords to rebuild or not, left the area
after the flood. Their motivation to return is different than in the case of
homeowners who plan to rehabilitate the homes they own.
Flood damages
All respondents note damages to their homes, differentiated according to
minor damage (4 per cent), major damage (70 per cent), and total destruction (26 per cent). 72 per cent were in the process of rehabilitating their
homes at the time of the survey. 13 per cent were building a new home on
the footprint of the previous (demolished) one. Two per cent were rebuilding
on a different property.
Early recovery becomes impossible if homeowners have to demolish
their homes, in some cases after rebuilding them, once a publicly appointed
expert surveyor detects levels of oil contamination dangerous to human
health. 72 per cent reported heating oil usage prior to the flood. 57 per cent
of homes were contaminated with heating oil during the flood. At the time
of the survey, 30 per cent of homes were still contaminated. 24 per cent were
demolished. After the flood, 83 per cent of participants switched to other
energy sources, and 15 per cent still used oil for heating. At the time of the
survey, many respondents had not yet found a solution to the oil problem,
pointing out a lack of financial support and consultation.
Recovery – with and without insurance
The possible influence that insurance has on rebuilding is limited to insured
homeowners. While the majority of survey participants were homeowners,
only 34 per cent of these had flood insurance, which is actually above the
Lower Bavarian average of 30 per cent. The compound flood-oil contamination significantly exacerbated the impact of the disaster and the rebuilding
needs that residents were confronted with. In some cases, insurance carriers dispute the degree of contamination. As a consequence of disputes,
insurance money was paid late or in degrees that was insufficient to cover
actual rebuilding costs. The degree of influence that insurance as a governance mechanism exerts on the recovery process is thus not only limited,
but actually hampers the recovery efforts of insured homeowners. They see
themselves at a disadvantage while their uninsured neighbours are able to
rebuild with governmental funding.
66 per cent of households were informed about the financial support for
uninsured homeowners. Applying for governmental funding was considered