After the flood 77
minorities (Emrich et al. 2020). These deficits increase as social vulnerabilities accumulate. This means that lower-income renters and homeowners, particularly people of colour, are more likely to be permanently
displaced; and if they do return, they are met with a disjointed sociocultural landscape.
While previous experience with insurance aids some, in many cases, that
previous experience reinforces disparities in access to more resilient recovery. Regina (homeowner, 50s) had an unfavourable experience with flood
insurance in the past. That experience, along with increasing premiums, led
her to decide not to purchase insurance despite recurring flood losses:
[REGINA] We had insurance. We had it during [Hurricane] Ike and it wasn’t
worth it… The back and forth [with the insurance company] was one big
headache… We ended up only getting a few thousand dollars because
they said most of the damage was caused by wind.
[INTERVIEWER] Have you been flooded since then?
[REGINA] Yes, a couple of times…We’re in the 100 [100-year floodplain].
[INTERVIEWER] Is flood insurance required?
[REGINA] Not for us, but yes… this was my parent’s house. When there was
a mortgage, we had it. But once it was paid off, we didn’t have to have
it…and it’s a lot more expensive now!… so now we just rehab a little bit
at a time. We might get help from the church or my uncle.
Regina’s experience contrasts with that of Ken (homeowner, 40s), who lived
5 km to the south:
[KEN] I have flood insurance, but I’m not in the floodplain. It’s really affordable, so I thought ‘why not.’
[INTERVIEWER] Were you flooded during Harvey?
[KEN] No. Water came up in the yard, but it never reached the house… I moved
up here [Houston] from Galveston a couple of years ago… my house was
flooded during Ike. I made off a lot better than a lot of my neighbours…
both my parents worked in insurance, so I knew what to do.
While government and industry discourses reason that insurance coverage equals more resilience, that messaging is not evenly experienced. Ken
was able to use his social capital and networks to navigate the system and
increase his resilience – making the system ‘work for him.’ However, for
Regina, resilience was found in eschewing flood insurance and relying on
self-repairs, networking, and informal recovery means. Ken’s success was
reinforced by direct insurance benefits and a ‘more resilient’ housing market
spurred on by recovery investment – allowing him to profit when selling his
previous residence. Regina’s recovery was counter to broader resilience and
redevelopment discourses, meaning her recovery (and resilience) centred on
relationships and sense of community.
minorities (Emrich et al. 2020). These deficits increase as social vulnerabilities accumulate. This means that lower-income renters and homeowners, particularly people of colour, are more likely to be permanently
displaced; and if they do return, they are met with a disjointed sociocultural landscape.
While previous experience with insurance aids some, in many cases, that
previous experience reinforces disparities in access to more resilient recovery. Regina (homeowner, 50s) had an unfavourable experience with flood
insurance in the past. That experience, along with increasing premiums, led
her to decide not to purchase insurance despite recurring flood losses:
[REGINA] We had insurance. We had it during [Hurricane] Ike and it wasn’t
worth it… The back and forth [with the insurance company] was one big
headache… We ended up only getting a few thousand dollars because
they said most of the damage was caused by wind.
[INTERVIEWER] Have you been flooded since then?
[REGINA] Yes, a couple of times…We’re in the 100 [100-year floodplain].
[INTERVIEWER] Is flood insurance required?
[REGINA] Not for us, but yes… this was my parent’s house. When there was
a mortgage, we had it. But once it was paid off, we didn’t have to have
it…and it’s a lot more expensive now!… so now we just rehab a little bit
at a time. We might get help from the church or my uncle.
Regina’s experience contrasts with that of Ken (homeowner, 40s), who lived
5 km to the south:
[KEN] I have flood insurance, but I’m not in the floodplain. It’s really affordable, so I thought ‘why not.’
[INTERVIEWER] Were you flooded during Harvey?
[KEN] No. Water came up in the yard, but it never reached the house… I moved
up here [Houston] from Galveston a couple of years ago… my house was
flooded during Ike. I made off a lot better than a lot of my neighbours…
both my parents worked in insurance, so I knew what to do.
While government and industry discourses reason that insurance coverage equals more resilience, that messaging is not evenly experienced. Ken
was able to use his social capital and networks to navigate the system and
increase his resilience – making the system ‘work for him.’ However, for
Regina, resilience was found in eschewing flood insurance and relying on
self-repairs, networking, and informal recovery means. Ken’s success was
reinforced by direct insurance benefits and a ‘more resilient’ housing market
spurred on by recovery investment – allowing him to profit when selling his
previous residence. Regina’s recovery was counter to broader resilience and
redevelopment discourses, meaning her recovery (and resilience) centred on
relationships and sense of community.