Skip to main content

A comparison of definitions of affordability for flood risk adaption measures: a case study of current and future risk-based flood insurance premiums in Europe

Abstract

Risk-based insurance is a commonly proposed and discussed flood risk adaptation mechanism in policy debates across the world such as in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. However, both risk-based premiums and growing risk pose increasing difficulties for insurance to remain affordable. An empirical concept of affordability is required as the affordability of adaption strategies is an important concern for policymakers, yet such a concept is not often examined. Therefore, a robust metric with a commonly acceptable affordability threshold is required. A robust metric allows for a previously normative concept to be quantified in monetary terms, and in this way, the metric is rendered more suitable for integration into public policy debates. This paper investigates the degree to which risk-based flood insurance premiums are unaffordable in Europe. In addition, this paper compares the outcomes generated by three different definitions of unaffordability in order to investigate the most robust definition. In doing so, the residual income definition was found to be the least sensitive to changes in the threshold. While this paper focuses on Europe, the selected definition can be employed elsewhere in the world and across adaption measures in order to develop a common metric for indicating the potential unaffordability problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The following climate models are used: GFDL-ESM2M, HadGEM2-ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, and Nor-ESM1-M

  2. 2.

    In particular: 1/2, 1/5, 1/10, 1/20, 1/50, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, and 1/1000

  3. 3.

    It is assumed that there is a fixed exchange rate of one US dollar being equal to 0.9 Euros. This number was based on the average exchange between the following dates: 1 January 2015–31 December 2016 according to https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html.

  4. 4.

    The data can be found at: floods.wri.org/.

  5. 5.

    On average across a nation

  6. 6.

    However, it must be kept in mind that this as an example for investigating a voucher scheme based on the proposals of Kunreuther (2008) rather than unaffordability directly.

  7. 7.

    Information on the 10th decile is missing. However, this is not problematic as these households are the least likely to face issues of unaffordability.

  8. 8.

    The particular Eurostat variable is named ilc_di01 from the EU-SILIC dataset.

  9. 9.

    However, this particular value is highly sensitive as discussed in Section 4.1.

    Fig. 3
    figure3

    Rates of unaffordability and the rate of change over 2010 and 2080 under the expenditure cap (a), housing cost (b), and residual income (c)

  10. 10.

    The particular Eurostat variable is named ilc_li03

  11. 11.

    The particular Eurostat variable is named tessi166

  12. 12.

    The variable is average rate calculated by the author from the data presented in: http://bit.ly/2wWUeFC

References

  1. Aerts JCJH, Botzen WJW, de Moel H (2013) Cost estimates for flood resilience and protection strategies in New York City. Annals N Y Acad Sci 1294:1–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Botzen WJW, van den Bergh JCJM (2008) Insurance against climate change and flooding in the Netherlands: present, future, and comparison with other countries. Risk Anal 28(2):413–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01035.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH, van den Bergh JCJM (2009) Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance. Ecol Econ 68(8-9):2265–2277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bubeck P, Aerts JCJH, de Moel H, Kreibich H (2016) Preface: flood-risk analysis and integrated management natural hazards and earth. Syst Sci 16:1005–1010

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bundorf M, Pauly M (2006) Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured. J Health Econ 25(4):650–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burby R (2001) Flood insurance and floodplain management: the US experience. Global Environ Change Part B: Environ Hazard 3(3-4):111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2867(02)00003-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Charpentier A (2008) Insurability of climate risks. Geneva Pap 33:91–109

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen S, Ravallion M (2012) More relatively-poor people in a less absolutely-poor world. World Bank, Washington. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-6114

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Consorcio de compensacion de seguros (2008) Natural catastrophes insurance cover. A diversity of systems. Consorcio de compensacion de seguros, Madrid

  10. DEFRA (2011) Flood risk and insurance: a roadmap to 2013 and beyond final report of the flood insurance working groups PB 13684. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London

  11. Dixon L, Clancy N, Miller BM, Hoegberg S, Lewis MM, Bender B, Ebinger S, Hodges M, Syck GM, Nagy C, Choquette SR (2017) The cost and affordability of flood insurance in New York City. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica. https://doi.org/10.7249/RB9957

  12. European Commission (2013) Green Paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters (Communication No. COM(2013) 213 final). European Commission, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  13. Frieler K, Betts R, Burke E, Ciais P, Denvil S, Deryng D, Ebi K, Eddy T, Emanuel K, Elliott J, Galbraith E, Gosling SN, Halladay K, Hattermann F, Hickler T, Hinkel J, Huber V, Jones C, Krysanova V, Lange S, Lotze HK, Lotze-Campen H, Mengel M, Mouratiadou I, Müller Schmied H, Ostberg S, Piontek F, Popp A, Reyer CPO, Schewe J, Stevanovic M, Suzuki T, Thonicke K, Tian H, Tittensor DP, Vautard R, van Vliet M, Warszawski L, Zhao F (2016) Assessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming– simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b). Geosci Model Dev Discuss:1–59. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2016-229

  14. Hegger DLT, Driessen PPJ, Dieperink C, Wiering M, Raadgever GT, van Rijswick HFMW (2014) Assessing stability and dynamics in flood risk governance: an empirically illustrated research approach. Water Resour Manag 28(12):4127–4142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0732-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hudson P, Botzen WJW, Feyen L, Aerts JCJH (2016) Incentivising flood risk adaptation through risk based insurance premiums: trade-offs between affordability and risk reduction. Ecol Econ 125:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jongman B, Hochrainer-Stigler S, Feyen L, Aerts JCJH, Mechler R, Botzen WJW, Bouwer LM, Pflug G, Rojas R, Ward PJ (2014) Increasing stress on disaster-risk finance due to large floods. Nat Clim Chang 4(4):264–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kind JM (2014) Economically efficient flood protection standards for the Netherlands. J Flood Risk Manage 7(2):103–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kousky K, Kunreuther H (2014) Addressing affordability in the National Flood Insurance Program. J Extreme Events 1(01):1450001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2345737614500018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kreibich H, van den Bergh JCJM, Bouwer LM, Bubeck P, Ciavola P, Green C, Hallegatte S, Logar I, Meyer V, Schwarze R, Thieken AH (2014) Costing natural hazards. Nat Clim Chang 4(5):303–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kron W (2005) Flood risk = hazard • values • vulnerability. Water Int 30(1):58–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060508691837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kunreuther H (1996) Mitigating disaster losses through insurance. J Risk Uncertain 12(2-3):171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kunreuther H (2008) Reducing losses from catastrophic risks through long-term insurance and mitigation. Soc Res 75:903–930

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kunreuther H (2015) The role of insurance in reducing losses from extreme events: the need for public-private partnerships. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract 40:741–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lamond JE, Penning-Rowsell EC (2014) The robustness of flood insurance regimes given changing risk resulting from climate change. Clim Risk Manag 2:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2014.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Linnerooth-Bayer J, Warner K, Bals C, Höppe P, Burton I, Loster T, Haas A (2009) Insurance, developing countries and climate change. Geneva Pap 34(3):381–400. https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.2009.15

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lloyds (2009) Insurance in developing countries. Llyods, London

    Google Scholar 

  27. McAneney J, McAneney D, Musulin R, Walker G, Crompton R (2016) Government-sponsored natural disaster insurance pools: a view from down-under. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 15:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Michel-Kerjan E (2010) Catastrophe economics: the National Flood Insurance Program. J Econ Perspect 24(4):165–186. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.4.165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Munich Re (2017) Natural catastrophes 2016 Analyses, assessments, position

  30. National Research Council (2015) Affordability of National Flood Insurance Program Premiums: Report 1. National Research Council, Washington, DC. 10.17226/21709

    Google Scholar 

  31. Natural Disaster Insurance Review (2011) Inquiry into flood insurance and related matters. Canberra

  32. OECD (2016) Financial management of flood risk. Paris

  33. Paudel Y, Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH (2012) A comparative study of public-private catastrophe insurance schemes: Lessons from current practices. Geneva Pap Risk Insur 37:257–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paudel Y, Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH (2013) Estimation of insurance premiums for coverage against natural disaster risk: an application of Bayesian Inference Natural Hazards and Earth Schemes. Science 13:737–754

    Google Scholar 

  35. Paudel Y, Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH, Dijkstra T (2015) Risk allocation in a public-private catastrophe insurance system: an actuarial analysis of deductibles; stop-loss; and premium. J Flood Risk Manage 8(2):116–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Saenz C (2009) What is affordable health insurance? The reasonable tradeoff account of affordability. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 19(4):401–414. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schwarze R, Schwindt M, Weck-Hannemann H, Raschky P, Zahn F, Wagner G (2011) Natural hazard insurance in Europe: tailored responses to climate change are needed. Environ Pol Gov 21:14–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Scussolini P, Aerts JCJH, Jongman B, Bouwer L, Winsemius HC, de Moel H, Ward PJ (2016) FLOPROS: an evolving global database of flood protection standards. Nat Hazards Earth Schemes Sci 16(5):1049–1061. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1049-2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Surminski S, Eldridge J (2015) Flood insurance in England: an assessment of the current and newly proposed insurance scheme in the context of rising flood risk. J Flood Risk Manage. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12127

  40. Surminski S, Oramas-Dorta D (2014) Flood insurance schemes and climate adaptation in developing countries. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 7:154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Surminski S, Aerts JCJH, Botzen WJW, Hudson P, Mysiak J, Pérez-Blanco CD (2015) Reflection on the current debate on how to link flood insurance and disaster risk reduction in the European Union. Nat Hazards 79(3):1451–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1823-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Surminski S, Bouwer L, Linnerooth-Bayer J (2016) How insurance can support climate resilience. Nat Clim Chang 6(4):333–334. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Swiss Re (2017) Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2016: a year of widespread damages. Swiss Re, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  44. UNISDR (2011) Global assessment report on disaster individual flood protection. Revealing risk, redefining development. Geneva

  45. Ward PJ, Jongman B, Weiland FS, Bouwman A, van Beek R, Bierkens MFP, Ligtvoet W, Winsemius HC (2013) Assessing flood risk at the global scale: model setup, results, and sensitivity. Environ Res Lett 8(4):044019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ward PJ, Jongman B, Aerts JCJH, Bates PD, Botzen WJW, Diaz Loaiza A, Hallegatte S, Kind JM, Kwadijk J, Scussolini P, Winsemius HC (2017) A global framework for future costs and benefits of river-flood protection in urban areas. Nat Clim Chang 7(9):642–646. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Warner K, Ranger N, Surminski S, Arnold M, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Michel-Kerjan E, Kovacs P, Herweijer C (2009) Adaptation to climate change: linking disaster risk reduction and insurance. UNISDR, Geneva

  48. Weedon GP, Gomes S, Viterbo P, Shuttleworth WJ, Blyth E, Österle H, Adam JC, Bellouin N, Boucher O, Best M (2011) Creation of the WATCH forcing data and its use to assess global and regional reference crop evaporation over land during the twentieth century. J Hydrometeorol 12(5):823–848. https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1369.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Winsemius HC, van Beek LPH, Jongman B, Ward PJ, Bouwman A (2013) A framework for global river flood risk assessments. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17(5):1871–1892. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1871-2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Winsemius HC, Aerts JCJH, van Beek LPH, Bierkens MFP, Bouwman A, Jongman B, Kwadijk JCJK (2016) Global drivers of future river flood risk. Nat Clim Chang 6(4):381–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2893

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Hudson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hudson, P. A comparison of definitions of affordability for flood risk adaption measures: a case study of current and future risk-based flood insurance premiums in Europe. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 23, 1019–1038 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-017-9769-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Flood risk
  • Insurance
  • Affordability
  • Climate change
  • Adaptation
  • Public policy