Schaefer, K K (2024) Community insurance as a flood management element in California. PhD thesis, University of California, Davis, USA.
Abstract
This dissertation addresses critical inadequacies in current flood risk management strategies by proposing an innovative community-based insurance (CBI) model. The research introduces a paradigm shift in flood insurance, reimagining it as 'Life Insurance for Levees' - a vital tool for community resilience in the face of escalating climate risks.The study presents a novel three-tier, insurance-facilitated program for flood-risk management, integrating multidisciplinary approaches from economics, finance, insurance, engineering, and social sciences. This comprehensive alternative to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) employs modern Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) concepts to actively manage flood risk's financial impacts.Through a mixed-methods approach, including policy analysis, case studies, and stakeholder interviews, the research examines the potential of Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHADs) as a governance mechanism for CBI programs. A case study of Isleton in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta illustrates the challenges and opportunities of implementing community-wide flood insurance. It also highlights the importance of GHADs in this new risk management strategy.The findings suggest that while a community-based disaster resiliency and recovery program could provide a more equitable and cost-effective alternative to the NFIP, its widespread implementation necessitates targeted support from federal, state, and local entities. Key elements for success include strong public-private partnerships, innovative insurance strategies, upfront no-regrets seed funding, action-based academic research, and long-term commitment from local officials.This research contributes significantly to the evolving field of climate risk management, offering a practical, community-centered approach that could transform disaster preparedness and recovery outcomes. By positioning flood insurance as a form of community life insurance, and as one component of a community ERM portfolio, this study aims to revolutionize the discourse surrounding flood risk management and community resilience.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Lund, J |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case studies; case study; funding; governance; insurance; policy; risk management; stakeholder |
| Index terms: | community-based, dissertation, disaster resiliency, climate risk, flood risk management, program, funding, social science, risk management, enterprise risk management, commitment, interview, community resilience, recovery, governance, face, implementation, community-centred, policy analysis, paradigm, disaster preparedness, strategy, partnership, insurance, case study |
| Subjects: | climate science, financial risk, economic analysis, management, education and knowledge transfer, operations management, business, communities and social development, safety engineering, psychology, risk assessment, community engagement, environmental hazards, contractual arrangements, social equity, software systems, theoretical framing, policy studies, partnership management, research dissemination and communication, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Organizational Design, Project Management, Governance, Procurement, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here