Flood insurance 91
social networks were not addressed. They lead to challenges in the individual recovery of residents and had influenced their access to resources during
and after the flood as well as their coping capacities (Wisner et al. 2004;
Bohle 2001, Bohle & Glade 2008, p. 99). Importantly, the most pronounced
differences in how quickly and successfully impacted residents were able to
return and rebuild were rooted in whether they were homeowners or not and
whether they were insured against floods or not.
Insured homeowners seemingly appeared as a contradiction in this case
study. They received insurance payouts only late or after disputes, some of
which resulted in settlements in court. In fact, our case study shows that
insurance can disadvantage homeowners and slow down their recovery
efforts (e.g. due to disagreements over issues, such as the severity of heating
oil contamination). As a consequence, it can take citizens who have insurance longer to rebuild than uninsured homeowners who receive governmental assistance. They can be described as situationally vulnerable, (Bolin
2006, p. 125) which can be explained as an outcome of inadequate facilitation
throughout all disaster management phases, where current governance systems enable settlement in at-risk locations (Kammerbauer & Wamsler 2018).
Conclusions
Based on our case study, the following observations can be made: The disconnect between different planning scales and the associated responsibilities
and mandates of different actors to enable sustainable living environments
did not support ‘building back better’ after disaster impact. Instead, it
reproduced structural and social risk that had led to the disaster in the first
place. This also relates to the fact that there is a disconnect between the constitutional obligation of the federal government to protect its citizens and
the notion of individual responsibility promoted by EU water regulations
and managerial approaches to disaster risk reduction. This translates into
citizens’ understanding that: ‘if the state protects me, why do I need insurance?’ Consequently, flood insurance coverage remains low. Moreover, our
case study shows that uninsured homeowners are able to recover quicker
than their insured counterparts. This is neither conducive to achieving consensus between the different actors of the current governance configuration,
nor does it contribute to sustainable risk reduction and adaptation.
Our analysis leads to the following recommendations to support the
role of flood insurance for effective flood risk governance and to foster sustainable and equitable risk reduction and adaptation: Market actors such
as insurance carriers need to provide greater incentives for potential customers to increase coverage, reduce vulnerability and promote adaptation
before and after the impacts of disaster. The governmental and civil society
actors need to better coordinate with market actors, such as insurance carriers, to ensure synergy creation for improving disaster governance. Given
that climate change will increase the number and intensity of floods in the
social networks were not addressed. They lead to challenges in the individual recovery of residents and had influenced their access to resources during
and after the flood as well as their coping capacities (Wisner et al. 2004;
Bohle 2001, Bohle & Glade 2008, p. 99). Importantly, the most pronounced
differences in how quickly and successfully impacted residents were able to
return and rebuild were rooted in whether they were homeowners or not and
whether they were insured against floods or not.
Insured homeowners seemingly appeared as a contradiction in this case
study. They received insurance payouts only late or after disputes, some of
which resulted in settlements in court. In fact, our case study shows that
insurance can disadvantage homeowners and slow down their recovery
efforts (e.g. due to disagreements over issues, such as the severity of heating
oil contamination). As a consequence, it can take citizens who have insurance longer to rebuild than uninsured homeowners who receive governmental assistance. They can be described as situationally vulnerable, (Bolin
2006, p. 125) which can be explained as an outcome of inadequate facilitation
throughout all disaster management phases, where current governance systems enable settlement in at-risk locations (Kammerbauer & Wamsler 2018).
Conclusions
Based on our case study, the following observations can be made: The disconnect between different planning scales and the associated responsibilities
and mandates of different actors to enable sustainable living environments
did not support ‘building back better’ after disaster impact. Instead, it
reproduced structural and social risk that had led to the disaster in the first
place. This also relates to the fact that there is a disconnect between the constitutional obligation of the federal government to protect its citizens and
the notion of individual responsibility promoted by EU water regulations
and managerial approaches to disaster risk reduction. This translates into
citizens’ understanding that: ‘if the state protects me, why do I need insurance?’ Consequently, flood insurance coverage remains low. Moreover, our
case study shows that uninsured homeowners are able to recover quicker
than their insured counterparts. This is neither conducive to achieving consensus between the different actors of the current governance configuration,
nor does it contribute to sustainable risk reduction and adaptation.
Our analysis leads to the following recommendations to support the
role of flood insurance for effective flood risk governance and to foster sustainable and equitable risk reduction and adaptation: Market actors such
as insurance carriers need to provide greater incentives for potential customers to increase coverage, reduce vulnerability and promote adaptation
before and after the impacts of disaster. The governmental and civil society
actors need to better coordinate with market actors, such as insurance carriers, to ensure synergy creation for improving disaster governance. Given
that climate change will increase the number and intensity of floods in the