the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Sep 2022
Freeboard Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis of a Rental Single-family Residence for Landlord, Tenant, and Insurer
Abstract. Flood risk to single-family rental housing remains poorly understood, leaving a large and increasing population underinformed to protect themselves, including regarding insurance. This research introduces a life-cycle benefit-cost analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer (i.e., National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)) to optimize freeboard (i.e., additional first-floor height above the base flood elevation (BFE)) selection for a rental single-family home. Flood insurance premium; apportioned flood risk among the landlord, tenant, and NFIP by insurance coverage and deductible; rental loss; moving and displacement costs; freeboard construction cost; and rent increase upon freeboard implementation are considered in estimating net benefit (NB) by freeboard. For a 2,500 square-foot case study home in Metairie, Louisiana, a two-foot freeboard optimizes the combined savings for landlord and tenant, with joint life-cycle NB of $23,658 and $14,978, for a 3 % and 7 % real discount rate, respectively. Any freeboard up to 2.5 feet benefits the tenant and NFIP, while the landlord benefits for freeboards up to 4.0 feet. Collectively, results suggest that at the time of construction, even minimal freeboard provides substantial savings for the landlord, tenant, and NFIP. The research provides actionable information, supporting the decision-making process for landlords, tenants, and others, thereby enhancing investment and occupation decisions.
- Preprint
(1256 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(182 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-222', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2022
This is a well written manuscript which introduces a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant and insurer. Louisiana is used as a case study. While I see that this work has got usefulness in terms of mitigating flood risk in urban areas and beyond, the following issues need to be addressed to enhance its international significance and readership.
[1] Enhance motivation and readership of the introduction part of this work, ie. include works from severely affected flood locations of the world
[2] If you did not derive all equations in this manuscript, delete them and just cite original sources in the texts
[3] Separate discussion section from results and compare your findings with similar works in USA or other areas
[4] Conclusion section is a bit scattered, be focus and convey key messages to your readers
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ehab S Gnan, 12 Oct 2022
We are grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments. Below is a point-by-point answer to the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewer.
[1] Enhance motivation and readership of the introduction part of this work, ie. include works from severely affected flood locations of the world
Thank you for pointing this out, we think this is an excellent suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 1. (Introduction):
“Flood is considered as one of the most destructive natural hazards, which causes injuries and fatalities, social disruptions, infrastructural damages, and economic losses across the world (Das and Gupta, 2021; Rosser et al., 2017; Termeh et al., 2018). These losses are projected to increase worldwide as a combined result of climatic change, rapid urbanization, and improper land use managements (Caruso, 2017; Hino and Hall, 2017; Mangini et al., 2018; Zadeh et al., 2020).”
References:
(India) Das, S., & Gupta, A. (2021). Multi-criteria decision based geospatial mapping of flood susceptibility and temporal hydro-geomorphic changes in the Subarnarekha basin, India. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(5), 101206.
Termeh, S.V.R., Kornejady, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., and Keesstra, S. (2018). Flood susceptibility mapping using novel ensembles of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system and metaheuristic algorithms. Sci. Tot. Environ., 615 (2018), pp. 438-451
Rosser, J.F., Leibovici, D.G., and Jackson, M.J. (2017). Rapid flood inundation mapping using social media, remote sensing and topographic data. Nat. Haz., 87 (1), pp. 103-120
(Canada) Zadeh, S.M., Burn, D.H., and O’Brien, N. (2020). Detection of trends in flood magnitude and frequency in Canada. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 28 (2020), Article 100673
(Europe) Mangini, W., Viglione, A., Hall, J., Hundecha, Y., Ceola, S., Montanari, A., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Borzì, I., and Parajka, J. (2018). Detection of trends in magnitude and frequency of flood peaks across Europe. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63 (4) (2018), pp. 493-512
(South America) Caruso, G.D. (2017). The legacy of natural disasters: The intergenerational impact of 100 years of disasters in Latin America. J. Dev. Econ., 127 (2017), pp. 209-233
Hino, M., & Hall, J. W. (2017). Real options analysis of adaptation to changing flood risk: Structural and nonstructural measures. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 3(3).
[2] If you did not derive all equations in this manuscript, delete them and just cite original sources in the texts
We agree with the reviewer. Accordingly, we have revised Section 2.1.3 (NFIP Freeboard Benefit). Citing the original source in line 332, and removing the equation from line 233.
[3] Separate discussion section from results and compare your findings with similar works in USA or other areas
You have raised an important point here. Although we agree that it is important to compare our findings with similar works, in our work, this would not be possible because this is the first and only study to apply life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer. We agree that this is a potential limitation. Therefore, we have added the following to Section 5. (Summary and Conclusion):
While acknowledging the limitations, the methodology proposed in this study provides a novel framework for quantifying life-cycle benefit of freeboard for single-family rentals through LCBCA. “To the best knowledge of the authors, there are no studies available applying a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer.”
Also, lines 47 to 56 in Section 1. (Introduction) further emphasizes this point.
[4] Conclusion section is a bit scattered, be focus and convey key messages to your readers
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, as it forced us to re-evaluate the structure of our “5. Summary and Conclusion” section. In so doing, we found that the reviewer is correct in this comment. In response, we made the following revisions:
- We removed all references in the section, as Summary and Conclusion sections really should not introduce new literature. This involved removing the last two sentences of the first paragraph along with the reference to Moser (1985) and the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2022c). Instead we now cite Mostafiz et al. (2022c) earlier in the paper where the concept of actionable information is introduced. Note, however, that because this reference precedes the other two Mostafiz et al. (2022) papers, this paper became “2022a” and the others were relabeled as “2022b” and “2022c” both in the text and in the reference list. We also moved the entire paragraph (which included references to Warren-Myers et al. (2018) and Hollar (2017)) following our bulleted points; the first two sentences were moved to Section 4.1.1 (Landlord Freeboard Benefits) and the last three sentences were moved to Section 4.1.2 (Tenant Freeboard Benefits). These moves are appropriate because the original paragraph contained new information that should not have been introduced in the Summary and Conclusion section. Finally, we removed the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2021b) because we felt that this information is general and did not need to be referenced.
- We clarified the fourth bullet point to remove ambiguity.
- We tightened language elsewhere in the paragraph.
The net result of our changes, length-wise, was a consolidation of the section from 624 to 416 words. Again, we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Md Adilur Rahim, 24 Jul 2023
This is a well written manuscript which introduces a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant and insurer. Louisiana is used as a case study. While I see that this work has got usefulness in terms of mitigating flood risk in urban areas and beyond, the following issues need to be addressed to enhance its international significance and readership.
Reply: We are grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments. Below is a point-by-point answer to the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewer.
[1] Enhance motivation and readership of the introduction part of this work, ie. include works from severely affected flood locations of the world
Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, we think this is an excellent suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 1. (Introduction):
“Flood is considered as one of the most destructive natural hazards, which causes injuries and fatalities, social disruptions, infrastructural damages, and economic losses across the world (Das and Gupta, 2021; Rosser et al., 2017; Termeh et al., 2018). These losses are projected to increase worldwide as a combined result of climatic change, rapid urbanization, and improper land use managements (Caruso, 2017; Hino and Hall, 2017; Mangini et al., 2018; Zadeh et al., 2020).”
References:
(India) Das, S., & Gupta, A. (2021). Multi-criteria decision based geospatial mapping of flood susceptibility and temporal hydro-geomorphic changes in the Subarnarekha basin, India. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(5), 101206.
Termeh, S.V.R., Kornejady, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., and Keesstra, S. (2018). Flood susceptibility mapping using novel ensembles of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system and metaheuristic algorithms. Sci. Tot. Environ., 615 (2018), pp. 438-451
Rosser, J.F., Leibovici, D.G., and Jackson, M.J. (2017). Rapid flood inundation mapping using social media, remote sensing and topographic data. Nat. Haz., 87 (1), pp. 103-120
(Canada) Zadeh, S.M., Burn, D.H., and O’Brien, N. (2020). Detection of trends in flood magnitude and frequency in Canada. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 28 (2020), Article 100673
(Europe) Mangini, W., Viglione, A., Hall, J., Hundecha, Y., Ceola, S., Montanari, A., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Borzì, I., and Parajka, J. (2018). Detection of trends in magnitude and frequency of flood peaks across Europe. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63 (4) (2018), pp. 493-512
(South America) Caruso, G.D. (2017). The legacy of natural disasters: The intergenerational impact of 100 years of disasters in Latin America. J. Dev. Econ., 127 (2017), pp. 209-233
Hino, M., & Hall, J. W. (2017). Real options analysis of adaptation to changing flood risk: Structural and nonstructural measures. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 3(3).
[2] If you did not derive all equations in this manuscript, delete them and just cite original sources in the texts
Reply: We agree with the reviewer. Accordingly, we have revised Section 2.1.3 (NFIP Freeboard Benefit). Citing the original source in line 256 and removing the equation 8 from line 257.
[3] Separate discussion section from results and compare your findings with similar works in USA or other areas
Reply: You have raised an important point here. Although we agree that it is important to compare our findings with similar works, in our work, this would not be possible because this is the first and only study to apply life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer. We agree that this is a potential limitation. Therefore, we have added the following to Section 5. (Summary and Conclusion):
“Despite the limitations and the fact that our study's findings may not be applicable everywhere, the methodology proposed in this study provides a novel framework for quantifying life-cycle benefit of freeboard for single-family rentals through LCBCA. To the best knowledge of the authors, there are no studies available applying a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer.”
Also, lines 46 to 57 (2nd paragraph of paper) in Section 1. (Introduction) further emphasizes this point.
[4] Conclusion section is a bit scattered, be focus and convey key messages to your readers
Reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, as it forced us to re-evaluate the structure of our “5. Summary and Conclusion” section. In so doing, we found that the reviewer is correct in this comment. In response, we made the following revisions:
- We removed all references in the section, as Summary and Conclusion sections really should not introduce new literature. This involved removing the last two sentences of the first paragraph along with the reference to Moser (1985) and the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2022c). Instead we now cite Mostafiz et al. (2022c) earlier in the paper where the concept of actionable information is introduced. Note, however, that because this reference precedes the other two Mostafiz et al. (2022) papers, this paper became “2022a” and the others were relabeled as “2022b” and “2022c” both in the text and in the reference list. We also moved the entire paragraph (which included references to Warren-Myers et al. (2018) and Hollar (2017)) following our bulleted points; the first two sentences were moved to Section 4.1.1 (Landlord Freeboard Benefits) and the last three sentences were moved to Section 4.1.2 (Tenant Freeboard Benefits). These moves are appropriate because the original paragraph contained new information that should not have been introduced in the Summary and Conclusion section. Finally, we removed the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2021b) because we felt that this information is general and did not need to be referenced.
- We clarified the fourth bullet point to remove ambiguity.
- We tightened language elsewhere in the paragraph.
The net result of our changes, length-wise, was a consolidation of the section from 624 to 416 words. Again, we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-AC2
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ehab S Gnan, 12 Oct 2022
-
AC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-222', Md Adilur Rahim, 29 Nov 2022
We are grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments. Below is a point-by-point answer to the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewer.
[1] Enhance motivation and readership of the introduction part of this work, ie. include works from severely affected flood locations of the world
Thank you for pointing this out, we think this is an excellent suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 1. (Introduction):
“Flood is considered as one of the most destructive natural hazards, which causes injuries and fatalities, social disruptions, infrastructural damages, and economic losses across the world (Das and Gupta, 2021; Rosser et al., 2017; Termeh et al., 2018). These losses are projected to increase worldwide as a combined result of climatic change, rapid urbanization, and improper land use managements (Caruso, 2017; Hino and Hall, 2017; Mangini et al., 2018; Zadeh et al., 2020).”
References:
(India) Das, S., & Gupta, A. (2021). Multi-criteria decision based geospatial mapping of flood susceptibility and temporal hydro-geomorphic changes in the Subarnarekha basin, India. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(5), 101206.
Termeh, S.V.R., Kornejady, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., and Keesstra, S. (2018). Flood susceptibility mapping using novel ensembles of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system and metaheuristic algorithms. Sci. Tot. Environ., 615 (2018), pp. 438-451
Rosser, J.F., Leibovici, D.G., and Jackson, M.J. (2017). Rapid flood inundation mapping using social media, remote sensing and topographic data. Nat. Haz., 87 (1), pp. 103-120
(Canada) Zadeh, S.M., Burn, D.H., and O’Brien, N. (2020). Detection of trends in flood magnitude and frequency in Canada. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 28 (2020), Article 100673
(Europe) Mangini, W., Viglione, A., Hall, J., Hundecha, Y., Ceola, S., Montanari, A., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Borzì, I., and Parajka, J. (2018). Detection of trends in magnitude and frequency of flood peaks across Europe. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63 (4) (2018), pp. 493-512
(South America) Caruso, G.D. (2017). The legacy of natural disasters: The intergenerational impact of 100 years of disasters in Latin America. J. Dev. Econ., 127 (2017), pp. 209-233
Hino, M., & Hall, J. W. (2017). Real options analysis of adaptation to changing flood risk: Structural and nonstructural measures. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 3(3).
[2] If you did not derive all equations in this manuscript, delete them and just cite original sources in the texts
We agree with the reviewer. Accordingly, we have revised Section 2.1.3 (NFIP Freeboard Benefit). Citing the original source in line 332, and removing the equation from line 233.
[3] Separate discussion section from results and compare your findings with similar works in USA or other areas
You have raised an important point here. Although we agree that it is important to compare our findings with similar works, in our work, this would not be possible because this is the first and only study to apply life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer. We agree that this is a potential limitation. Therefore, we have added the following to Section 5. (Summary and Conclusion):
While acknowledging the limitations, the methodology proposed in this study provides a novel framework for quantifying life-cycle benefit of freeboard for single-family rentals through LCBCA. “To the best knowledge of the authors, there are no studies available applying a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer.”
Also, lines 47 to 56 in Section 1. (Introduction) further emphasizes this point.
[4] Conclusion section is a bit scattered, be focus and convey key messages to your readers
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, as it forced us to re-evaluate the structure of our “5. Summary and Conclusion” section. In so doing, we found that the reviewer is correct in this comment. In response, we made the following revisions:
- We removed all references in the section, as Summary and Conclusion sections really should not introduce new literature. This involved removing the last two sentences of the first paragraph along with the reference to Moser (1985) and the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2022c). Instead we now cite Mostafiz et al. (2022c) earlier in the paper where the concept of actionable information is introduced. Note, however, that because this reference precedes the other two Mostafiz et al. (2022) papers, this paper became “2022a” and the others were relabeled as “2022b” and “2022c” both in the text and in the reference list. We also moved the entire paragraph (which included references to Warren-Myers et al. (2018) and Hollar (2017)) following our bulleted points; the first two sentences were moved to Section 4.1.1 (Landlord Freeboard Benefits) and the last three sentences were moved to Section 4.1.2 (Tenant Freeboard Benefits). These moves are appropriate because the original paragraph contained new information that should not have been introduced in the Summary and Conclusion section. Finally, we removed the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2021b) because we felt that this information is general and did not need to be referenced.
- We clarified the fourth bullet point to remove ambiguity.
- We tightened language elsewhere in the paragraph.
The net result of our changes, length-wise, was a consolidation of the section from 624 to 416 words. Again, we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-AC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-222', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jun 2023
The manuscript aims to advance in the understanding of flood risk to single-family rental housing performing a life-cycle benefit-cost analysis from the landlord, tenant, and insurer perspective for selecting the optimal freeboard for a rental single-family home. The authors show that a significant savings for the considered parties is provided when freeboard is planned in the construction phase.
While the topic is surely of relevance and interest, I see some weak points in the methodology that raise concern.
- How representative are the depth-damage functions derived in the early 2000s in a changing climate?
- It is mentioned that “the site’s flood elevations are determined from FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP) project”. For someone not familiar with the FEMA methodology it is not clear for example what the “AE flood zone” is, how flood depths are derived, there is no comment about uncertainty.
- How the whole analysis would change if levees or other hydraulic protections would be built is not even taken into consideration.
- I believe that a single case study is not enough to provide a methodology that can be straightforwardly generalized and extended to other cases with different characteristics (both from a merely construction point of view, for example multi-family houses and, in particular, from the hydrological point of view). This definetely does not contribute to the study strength and does not make it far-reaching and of broad interest.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Md Adilur Rahim, 24 Jul 2023
The manuscript aims to advance in the understanding of flood risk to single-family rental housing performing a life-cycle benefit-cost analysis from the landlord, tenant, and insurer perspective for selecting the optimal freeboard for a rental single-family home. The authors show that a significant savings for the considered parties is provided when freeboard is planned in the construction phase.
While the topic is surely of relevance and interest, I see some weak points in the methodology that raise concern.
Reply: We appreciate the time that the reviewer has dedicated to provide these valuable comments. We have incorporated changes to reflect the feedback provided.
- How representative are the depth-damage functions derived in the early 2000s in a changing climate?
Reply: That is an excellent point. In our previous article (Gnan et al, 2022), a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the same site to examine the variability in AAL results based on depth-damage function (DDF) choice, including most recent comprehensive work in the loss function.
Accordingly, we have added the following to ‘Building AAL’ section of Methodology:
“It is important to note that the variability in AAL based on DDF choice is a primary concern in assessing flood losses (Wing et al., 2020). Thus, a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the same site used by Gnan et al. (2022a) to examine the variability in AAL based on DDF choice between USACE (2000), which is an empirical DDF based on flood loss observation from 1996-1998 across the U.S. and applicable nationwide; USACE (2006), which uses DDFs customized for New Orleans during post-Hurricane Katrina assessment; along with specialized approaches developed by Nofal et al. (2020), and Wing et al. (2020). AAL differences were observed based on DDF choice. The finding underscores the need for more research on DDFs and the effects of climate change.”
Moreover, in Gnan et al. (2022b – cited in the main text as 2022a), it is stated:
“Although updated USACE (2006) offers more precise DDFs, they require input on flood duration (i.e., short or long) and foundation type (i.e., pier, slab, or mobile home) for both freshwater and saltwater flooding. Likewise, USACE (2015) offers other advantages, but because it was designed for the North Atlantic Coast, its DDFs are developed considering inundation, waves, and erosion mechanisms for different building prototypes. Thus, the more generic DDFs in USACE (2000) for inland flooding are selected here, and sensitivity to the issue of selection of DDF is not included in this analysis, but it could affect the outcome of results substantially (Mostafiz et al., 2021b).”
References:
Gnan, E., Friedland, C.J., Rahim, M.A., Mostafiz R.B., Rohli, R.V., Orooji, F., Taghinazhad, A., and McElwee, J. (2022b). Improved building-specific flood risk assessment and implications of depth-damage function selection. Frontiers in Water, 4, Art. No. 919726. doi: 10.3389/frwa.2022.919726.
Gnan, E., Friedland, C. J., Mostafiz, R. B., Rahim, M. A., Gentimis, T., Taghinezhad, A., & Rohli, R. V. (2022a). Economically optimizing elevation of new, single-family residences for flood mitigation via life-cycle benefit-cost analysis. Frontiers in Environmental Science. Art. No. 889239. https://doi.org/Doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.889239.
Nofal, O. M., van de Lindt, J. W., and Do, T. Q. (2020). Multi-variate and single variable flood fragility and loss approaches for buildings. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 202, 106971. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106971
USACE (2006). Depth-Damage Relationships for Structures, Contents, and Vehicles and Content-to-Structure Value Ratios (CSVR) in Support of the Donaldsonville to the Gulf, Louisiana, Feasibility Study. Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.
Wing, O. E., Pinter, N., Bates, P. D., and Kousky, C. (2020). New insights into US flood vulnerability revealed from flood insurance big data. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–0. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15264-2
- It is mentioned that “the site’s flood elevations are determined from FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP) project”. For someone not familiar with the FEMA methodology it is not clear for example what the “AE flood zone” is, how flood depths are derived, there is no comment about uncertainty.
Reply: This is an excellent suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 3. (Case Study):
“It is essential to note that AE Zones, are the areas subject to inundation from the 1% annual chance flood (also known as the 100-year flood) and are defined with BFEs that reflect the combined influence of stillwater flood elevations and wave effects less than 3 feet (Dean et al., 2005). Furthermore, it is vital to acknowledge that the metropolitan New Orleans area is protected by various flood protection systems, such as levees, pumping stations, and flood gates (Wilkins et al., 2008), so our analysis incorporates the effect of the current flood protection infrastructure.” References:
Dean, R., Collins, I., Divoky, D., Hatheway, D., & Scheffner, N. (2005). Wave setup: FEMA coastal flood hazard analysis and mapping guidelines. Focused Study Report. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Wilkins, J. G., Emmer, R. E., Hwang, D., Kemp, G. P., Kennedy, B., Mashriqui, H., et al. (2008). Louisiana Coastal Hazard Mitigation Guidebook. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Sea Grant College Program. Available online at: https://tamug-ir.tdl.org/ handle/1969.3/28993
“It is worth mentioning that the Flood Risk Database provides flood depth grid data to assist community officials in gaining a better understanding, investigating, and communicating the variations in flood depths within flood-prone areas (FEMA, 2023a). These grids depict the flood depth, measured in feet above the ground surface, and are often more comprehensible than the base 1-percent-annual-chance flood elevations. Flood depth grids are generated for different design flood events, including the 10-percent, 2-percent, 1-percent, and 0.2-percent annual-chance floods (FEMA, 2023b).”
Also, the following point about uncertainty is added to Section 5. (Summary and Conclusion):
“The estimations are impacted by high uncertainty related to the unpredictable nature of flood occurrence and the generality of the flood loss functions.”
- How the whole analysis would change if levees or other hydraulic protections would be built is not even taken into consideration.
Reply: Thank you for pointing this out. The current system of levees and other hydraulic protections are already considered in the analysis, but our work cannot anticipate future changes to this network. We agree that we need to clarify this point in the article. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 3. (Case Study):
“Furthermore, it is vital to acknowledge that the metropolitan New Orleans area is protected by various flood protection systems, such as levees, pumping stations, and flood gates (Wilkins et al., 2008), so our analysis incorporates the effect of the current flood protection infrastructure.”
References:
Wilkins, J. G., Emmer, R. E., Hwang, D., Kemp, G. P., Kennedy, B., Mashriqui, H., et al. (2008). Louisiana Coastal Hazard Mitigation Guidebook. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Sea Grant College Program. Available online at: https://tamug-ir.tdl.org/ handle/1969.3/28993
- I believe that a single case study is not enough to provide a methodology that can be straightforwardly generalized and extended to other cases with different characteristics (both from a merely construction point of view, for example multi-family houses and, in particular, from the hydrological point of view). This definetely does not contribute to the study strength and does not make it far-reaching and of broad interest.
Reply: Thank you for your comment. It is important to clarify that the methodology utilizes inundation data corresponding to each specific address. While this study is limited to one-story, single-family homes, the methodology is developed generally and can be adapted to other types of homes and varying input requirements. We agree that our study's findings may not applicable everywhere, but the purpose of the specific case study is to understand specific situation as a starting point for more research. Our goal is to provide a practical example that demonstrates the methodology. In the last two lines of original text, we already explain that:
“The results highlight the need to evaluate the life-cycle benefits of freeboard at a single-building level, to allow for a more localized and detailed assessment. Extending this method to multi-family rentals and upscaling to estimate community-level will further assist in enhancing resilience to the flood hazard.”
In our revised version, we have incorporated the below text into the summary to better show the contribution and limitation of our study.
“Despite the limitations and the fact that our study's findings may not be applicable everywhere, the methodology proposed in this study provides a novel framework for quantifying life-cycle benefit of freeboard for single-family rentals through LCBCA. To the best knowledge of the authors, there are no studies available applying a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-AC3
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-222', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Sep 2022
This is a well written manuscript which introduces a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant and insurer. Louisiana is used as a case study. While I see that this work has got usefulness in terms of mitigating flood risk in urban areas and beyond, the following issues need to be addressed to enhance its international significance and readership.
[1] Enhance motivation and readership of the introduction part of this work, ie. include works from severely affected flood locations of the world
[2] If you did not derive all equations in this manuscript, delete them and just cite original sources in the texts
[3] Separate discussion section from results and compare your findings with similar works in USA or other areas
[4] Conclusion section is a bit scattered, be focus and convey key messages to your readers
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ehab S Gnan, 12 Oct 2022
We are grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments. Below is a point-by-point answer to the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewer.
[1] Enhance motivation and readership of the introduction part of this work, ie. include works from severely affected flood locations of the world
Thank you for pointing this out, we think this is an excellent suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 1. (Introduction):
“Flood is considered as one of the most destructive natural hazards, which causes injuries and fatalities, social disruptions, infrastructural damages, and economic losses across the world (Das and Gupta, 2021; Rosser et al., 2017; Termeh et al., 2018). These losses are projected to increase worldwide as a combined result of climatic change, rapid urbanization, and improper land use managements (Caruso, 2017; Hino and Hall, 2017; Mangini et al., 2018; Zadeh et al., 2020).”
References:
(India) Das, S., & Gupta, A. (2021). Multi-criteria decision based geospatial mapping of flood susceptibility and temporal hydro-geomorphic changes in the Subarnarekha basin, India. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(5), 101206.
Termeh, S.V.R., Kornejady, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., and Keesstra, S. (2018). Flood susceptibility mapping using novel ensembles of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system and metaheuristic algorithms. Sci. Tot. Environ., 615 (2018), pp. 438-451
Rosser, J.F., Leibovici, D.G., and Jackson, M.J. (2017). Rapid flood inundation mapping using social media, remote sensing and topographic data. Nat. Haz., 87 (1), pp. 103-120
(Canada) Zadeh, S.M., Burn, D.H., and O’Brien, N. (2020). Detection of trends in flood magnitude and frequency in Canada. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 28 (2020), Article 100673
(Europe) Mangini, W., Viglione, A., Hall, J., Hundecha, Y., Ceola, S., Montanari, A., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Borzì, I., and Parajka, J. (2018). Detection of trends in magnitude and frequency of flood peaks across Europe. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63 (4) (2018), pp. 493-512
(South America) Caruso, G.D. (2017). The legacy of natural disasters: The intergenerational impact of 100 years of disasters in Latin America. J. Dev. Econ., 127 (2017), pp. 209-233
Hino, M., & Hall, J. W. (2017). Real options analysis of adaptation to changing flood risk: Structural and nonstructural measures. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 3(3).
[2] If you did not derive all equations in this manuscript, delete them and just cite original sources in the texts
We agree with the reviewer. Accordingly, we have revised Section 2.1.3 (NFIP Freeboard Benefit). Citing the original source in line 332, and removing the equation from line 233.
[3] Separate discussion section from results and compare your findings with similar works in USA or other areas
You have raised an important point here. Although we agree that it is important to compare our findings with similar works, in our work, this would not be possible because this is the first and only study to apply life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer. We agree that this is a potential limitation. Therefore, we have added the following to Section 5. (Summary and Conclusion):
While acknowledging the limitations, the methodology proposed in this study provides a novel framework for quantifying life-cycle benefit of freeboard for single-family rentals through LCBCA. “To the best knowledge of the authors, there are no studies available applying a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer.”
Also, lines 47 to 56 in Section 1. (Introduction) further emphasizes this point.
[4] Conclusion section is a bit scattered, be focus and convey key messages to your readers
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, as it forced us to re-evaluate the structure of our “5. Summary and Conclusion” section. In so doing, we found that the reviewer is correct in this comment. In response, we made the following revisions:
- We removed all references in the section, as Summary and Conclusion sections really should not introduce new literature. This involved removing the last two sentences of the first paragraph along with the reference to Moser (1985) and the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2022c). Instead we now cite Mostafiz et al. (2022c) earlier in the paper where the concept of actionable information is introduced. Note, however, that because this reference precedes the other two Mostafiz et al. (2022) papers, this paper became “2022a” and the others were relabeled as “2022b” and “2022c” both in the text and in the reference list. We also moved the entire paragraph (which included references to Warren-Myers et al. (2018) and Hollar (2017)) following our bulleted points; the first two sentences were moved to Section 4.1.1 (Landlord Freeboard Benefits) and the last three sentences were moved to Section 4.1.2 (Tenant Freeboard Benefits). These moves are appropriate because the original paragraph contained new information that should not have been introduced in the Summary and Conclusion section. Finally, we removed the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2021b) because we felt that this information is general and did not need to be referenced.
- We clarified the fourth bullet point to remove ambiguity.
- We tightened language elsewhere in the paragraph.
The net result of our changes, length-wise, was a consolidation of the section from 624 to 416 words. Again, we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Md Adilur Rahim, 24 Jul 2023
This is a well written manuscript which introduces a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant and insurer. Louisiana is used as a case study. While I see that this work has got usefulness in terms of mitigating flood risk in urban areas and beyond, the following issues need to be addressed to enhance its international significance and readership.
Reply: We are grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments. Below is a point-by-point answer to the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewer.
[1] Enhance motivation and readership of the introduction part of this work, ie. include works from severely affected flood locations of the world
Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, we think this is an excellent suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 1. (Introduction):
“Flood is considered as one of the most destructive natural hazards, which causes injuries and fatalities, social disruptions, infrastructural damages, and economic losses across the world (Das and Gupta, 2021; Rosser et al., 2017; Termeh et al., 2018). These losses are projected to increase worldwide as a combined result of climatic change, rapid urbanization, and improper land use managements (Caruso, 2017; Hino and Hall, 2017; Mangini et al., 2018; Zadeh et al., 2020).”
References:
(India) Das, S., & Gupta, A. (2021). Multi-criteria decision based geospatial mapping of flood susceptibility and temporal hydro-geomorphic changes in the Subarnarekha basin, India. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(5), 101206.
Termeh, S.V.R., Kornejady, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., and Keesstra, S. (2018). Flood susceptibility mapping using novel ensembles of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system and metaheuristic algorithms. Sci. Tot. Environ., 615 (2018), pp. 438-451
Rosser, J.F., Leibovici, D.G., and Jackson, M.J. (2017). Rapid flood inundation mapping using social media, remote sensing and topographic data. Nat. Haz., 87 (1), pp. 103-120
(Canada) Zadeh, S.M., Burn, D.H., and O’Brien, N. (2020). Detection of trends in flood magnitude and frequency in Canada. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 28 (2020), Article 100673
(Europe) Mangini, W., Viglione, A., Hall, J., Hundecha, Y., Ceola, S., Montanari, A., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Borzì, I., and Parajka, J. (2018). Detection of trends in magnitude and frequency of flood peaks across Europe. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63 (4) (2018), pp. 493-512
(South America) Caruso, G.D. (2017). The legacy of natural disasters: The intergenerational impact of 100 years of disasters in Latin America. J. Dev. Econ., 127 (2017), pp. 209-233
Hino, M., & Hall, J. W. (2017). Real options analysis of adaptation to changing flood risk: Structural and nonstructural measures. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 3(3).
[2] If you did not derive all equations in this manuscript, delete them and just cite original sources in the texts
Reply: We agree with the reviewer. Accordingly, we have revised Section 2.1.3 (NFIP Freeboard Benefit). Citing the original source in line 256 and removing the equation 8 from line 257.
[3] Separate discussion section from results and compare your findings with similar works in USA or other areas
Reply: You have raised an important point here. Although we agree that it is important to compare our findings with similar works, in our work, this would not be possible because this is the first and only study to apply life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer. We agree that this is a potential limitation. Therefore, we have added the following to Section 5. (Summary and Conclusion):
“Despite the limitations and the fact that our study's findings may not be applicable everywhere, the methodology proposed in this study provides a novel framework for quantifying life-cycle benefit of freeboard for single-family rentals through LCBCA. To the best knowledge of the authors, there are no studies available applying a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer.”
Also, lines 46 to 57 (2nd paragraph of paper) in Section 1. (Introduction) further emphasizes this point.
[4] Conclusion section is a bit scattered, be focus and convey key messages to your readers
Reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, as it forced us to re-evaluate the structure of our “5. Summary and Conclusion” section. In so doing, we found that the reviewer is correct in this comment. In response, we made the following revisions:
- We removed all references in the section, as Summary and Conclusion sections really should not introduce new literature. This involved removing the last two sentences of the first paragraph along with the reference to Moser (1985) and the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2022c). Instead we now cite Mostafiz et al. (2022c) earlier in the paper where the concept of actionable information is introduced. Note, however, that because this reference precedes the other two Mostafiz et al. (2022) papers, this paper became “2022a” and the others were relabeled as “2022b” and “2022c” both in the text and in the reference list. We also moved the entire paragraph (which included references to Warren-Myers et al. (2018) and Hollar (2017)) following our bulleted points; the first two sentences were moved to Section 4.1.1 (Landlord Freeboard Benefits) and the last three sentences were moved to Section 4.1.2 (Tenant Freeboard Benefits). These moves are appropriate because the original paragraph contained new information that should not have been introduced in the Summary and Conclusion section. Finally, we removed the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2021b) because we felt that this information is general and did not need to be referenced.
- We clarified the fourth bullet point to remove ambiguity.
- We tightened language elsewhere in the paragraph.
The net result of our changes, length-wise, was a consolidation of the section from 624 to 416 words. Again, we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-AC2
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ehab S Gnan, 12 Oct 2022
-
AC1: 'Comment on nhess-2022-222', Md Adilur Rahim, 29 Nov 2022
We are grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments. Below is a point-by-point answer to the comments and suggestions raised by the reviewer.
[1] Enhance motivation and readership of the introduction part of this work, ie. include works from severely affected flood locations of the world
Thank you for pointing this out, we think this is an excellent suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 1. (Introduction):
“Flood is considered as one of the most destructive natural hazards, which causes injuries and fatalities, social disruptions, infrastructural damages, and economic losses across the world (Das and Gupta, 2021; Rosser et al., 2017; Termeh et al., 2018). These losses are projected to increase worldwide as a combined result of climatic change, rapid urbanization, and improper land use managements (Caruso, 2017; Hino and Hall, 2017; Mangini et al., 2018; Zadeh et al., 2020).”
References:
(India) Das, S., & Gupta, A. (2021). Multi-criteria decision based geospatial mapping of flood susceptibility and temporal hydro-geomorphic changes in the Subarnarekha basin, India. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(5), 101206.
Termeh, S.V.R., Kornejady, A., Pourghasemi, H.R., and Keesstra, S. (2018). Flood susceptibility mapping using novel ensembles of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system and metaheuristic algorithms. Sci. Tot. Environ., 615 (2018), pp. 438-451
Rosser, J.F., Leibovici, D.G., and Jackson, M.J. (2017). Rapid flood inundation mapping using social media, remote sensing and topographic data. Nat. Haz., 87 (1), pp. 103-120
(Canada) Zadeh, S.M., Burn, D.H., and O’Brien, N. (2020). Detection of trends in flood magnitude and frequency in Canada. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 28 (2020), Article 100673
(Europe) Mangini, W., Viglione, A., Hall, J., Hundecha, Y., Ceola, S., Montanari, A., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Borzì, I., and Parajka, J. (2018). Detection of trends in magnitude and frequency of flood peaks across Europe. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63 (4) (2018), pp. 493-512
(South America) Caruso, G.D. (2017). The legacy of natural disasters: The intergenerational impact of 100 years of disasters in Latin America. J. Dev. Econ., 127 (2017), pp. 209-233
Hino, M., & Hall, J. W. (2017). Real options analysis of adaptation to changing flood risk: Structural and nonstructural measures. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 3(3).
[2] If you did not derive all equations in this manuscript, delete them and just cite original sources in the texts
We agree with the reviewer. Accordingly, we have revised Section 2.1.3 (NFIP Freeboard Benefit). Citing the original source in line 332, and removing the equation from line 233.
[3] Separate discussion section from results and compare your findings with similar works in USA or other areas
You have raised an important point here. Although we agree that it is important to compare our findings with similar works, in our work, this would not be possible because this is the first and only study to apply life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer. We agree that this is a potential limitation. Therefore, we have added the following to Section 5. (Summary and Conclusion):
While acknowledging the limitations, the methodology proposed in this study provides a novel framework for quantifying life-cycle benefit of freeboard for single-family rentals through LCBCA. “To the best knowledge of the authors, there are no studies available applying a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer.”
Also, lines 47 to 56 in Section 1. (Introduction) further emphasizes this point.
[4] Conclusion section is a bit scattered, be focus and convey key messages to your readers
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, as it forced us to re-evaluate the structure of our “5. Summary and Conclusion” section. In so doing, we found that the reviewer is correct in this comment. In response, we made the following revisions:
- We removed all references in the section, as Summary and Conclusion sections really should not introduce new literature. This involved removing the last two sentences of the first paragraph along with the reference to Moser (1985) and the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2022c). Instead we now cite Mostafiz et al. (2022c) earlier in the paper where the concept of actionable information is introduced. Note, however, that because this reference precedes the other two Mostafiz et al. (2022) papers, this paper became “2022a” and the others were relabeled as “2022b” and “2022c” both in the text and in the reference list. We also moved the entire paragraph (which included references to Warren-Myers et al. (2018) and Hollar (2017)) following our bulleted points; the first two sentences were moved to Section 4.1.1 (Landlord Freeboard Benefits) and the last three sentences were moved to Section 4.1.2 (Tenant Freeboard Benefits). These moves are appropriate because the original paragraph contained new information that should not have been introduced in the Summary and Conclusion section. Finally, we removed the reference to Mostafiz et al. (2021b) because we felt that this information is general and did not need to be referenced.
- We clarified the fourth bullet point to remove ambiguity.
- We tightened language elsewhere in the paragraph.
The net result of our changes, length-wise, was a consolidation of the section from 624 to 416 words. Again, we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-AC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2022-222', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jun 2023
The manuscript aims to advance in the understanding of flood risk to single-family rental housing performing a life-cycle benefit-cost analysis from the landlord, tenant, and insurer perspective for selecting the optimal freeboard for a rental single-family home. The authors show that a significant savings for the considered parties is provided when freeboard is planned in the construction phase.
While the topic is surely of relevance and interest, I see some weak points in the methodology that raise concern.
- How representative are the depth-damage functions derived in the early 2000s in a changing climate?
- It is mentioned that “the site’s flood elevations are determined from FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP) project”. For someone not familiar with the FEMA methodology it is not clear for example what the “AE flood zone” is, how flood depths are derived, there is no comment about uncertainty.
- How the whole analysis would change if levees or other hydraulic protections would be built is not even taken into consideration.
- I believe that a single case study is not enough to provide a methodology that can be straightforwardly generalized and extended to other cases with different characteristics (both from a merely construction point of view, for example multi-family houses and, in particular, from the hydrological point of view). This definetely does not contribute to the study strength and does not make it far-reaching and of broad interest.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Md Adilur Rahim, 24 Jul 2023
The manuscript aims to advance in the understanding of flood risk to single-family rental housing performing a life-cycle benefit-cost analysis from the landlord, tenant, and insurer perspective for selecting the optimal freeboard for a rental single-family home. The authors show that a significant savings for the considered parties is provided when freeboard is planned in the construction phase.
While the topic is surely of relevance and interest, I see some weak points in the methodology that raise concern.
Reply: We appreciate the time that the reviewer has dedicated to provide these valuable comments. We have incorporated changes to reflect the feedback provided.
- How representative are the depth-damage functions derived in the early 2000s in a changing climate?
Reply: That is an excellent point. In our previous article (Gnan et al, 2022), a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the same site to examine the variability in AAL results based on depth-damage function (DDF) choice, including most recent comprehensive work in the loss function.
Accordingly, we have added the following to ‘Building AAL’ section of Methodology:
“It is important to note that the variability in AAL based on DDF choice is a primary concern in assessing flood losses (Wing et al., 2020). Thus, a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the same site used by Gnan et al. (2022a) to examine the variability in AAL based on DDF choice between USACE (2000), which is an empirical DDF based on flood loss observation from 1996-1998 across the U.S. and applicable nationwide; USACE (2006), which uses DDFs customized for New Orleans during post-Hurricane Katrina assessment; along with specialized approaches developed by Nofal et al. (2020), and Wing et al. (2020). AAL differences were observed based on DDF choice. The finding underscores the need for more research on DDFs and the effects of climate change.”
Moreover, in Gnan et al. (2022b – cited in the main text as 2022a), it is stated:
“Although updated USACE (2006) offers more precise DDFs, they require input on flood duration (i.e., short or long) and foundation type (i.e., pier, slab, or mobile home) for both freshwater and saltwater flooding. Likewise, USACE (2015) offers other advantages, but because it was designed for the North Atlantic Coast, its DDFs are developed considering inundation, waves, and erosion mechanisms for different building prototypes. Thus, the more generic DDFs in USACE (2000) for inland flooding are selected here, and sensitivity to the issue of selection of DDF is not included in this analysis, but it could affect the outcome of results substantially (Mostafiz et al., 2021b).”
References:
Gnan, E., Friedland, C.J., Rahim, M.A., Mostafiz R.B., Rohli, R.V., Orooji, F., Taghinazhad, A., and McElwee, J. (2022b). Improved building-specific flood risk assessment and implications of depth-damage function selection. Frontiers in Water, 4, Art. No. 919726. doi: 10.3389/frwa.2022.919726.
Gnan, E., Friedland, C. J., Mostafiz, R. B., Rahim, M. A., Gentimis, T., Taghinezhad, A., & Rohli, R. V. (2022a). Economically optimizing elevation of new, single-family residences for flood mitigation via life-cycle benefit-cost analysis. Frontiers in Environmental Science. Art. No. 889239. https://doi.org/Doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.889239.
Nofal, O. M., van de Lindt, J. W., and Do, T. Q. (2020). Multi-variate and single variable flood fragility and loss approaches for buildings. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 202, 106971. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106971
USACE (2006). Depth-Damage Relationships for Structures, Contents, and Vehicles and Content-to-Structure Value Ratios (CSVR) in Support of the Donaldsonville to the Gulf, Louisiana, Feasibility Study. Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.
Wing, O. E., Pinter, N., Bates, P. D., and Kousky, C. (2020). New insights into US flood vulnerability revealed from flood insurance big data. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–0. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15264-2
- It is mentioned that “the site’s flood elevations are determined from FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP) project”. For someone not familiar with the FEMA methodology it is not clear for example what the “AE flood zone” is, how flood depths are derived, there is no comment about uncertainty.
Reply: This is an excellent suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 3. (Case Study):
“It is essential to note that AE Zones, are the areas subject to inundation from the 1% annual chance flood (also known as the 100-year flood) and are defined with BFEs that reflect the combined influence of stillwater flood elevations and wave effects less than 3 feet (Dean et al., 2005). Furthermore, it is vital to acknowledge that the metropolitan New Orleans area is protected by various flood protection systems, such as levees, pumping stations, and flood gates (Wilkins et al., 2008), so our analysis incorporates the effect of the current flood protection infrastructure.” References:
Dean, R., Collins, I., Divoky, D., Hatheway, D., & Scheffner, N. (2005). Wave setup: FEMA coastal flood hazard analysis and mapping guidelines. Focused Study Report. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Wilkins, J. G., Emmer, R. E., Hwang, D., Kemp, G. P., Kennedy, B., Mashriqui, H., et al. (2008). Louisiana Coastal Hazard Mitigation Guidebook. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Sea Grant College Program. Available online at: https://tamug-ir.tdl.org/ handle/1969.3/28993
“It is worth mentioning that the Flood Risk Database provides flood depth grid data to assist community officials in gaining a better understanding, investigating, and communicating the variations in flood depths within flood-prone areas (FEMA, 2023a). These grids depict the flood depth, measured in feet above the ground surface, and are often more comprehensible than the base 1-percent-annual-chance flood elevations. Flood depth grids are generated for different design flood events, including the 10-percent, 2-percent, 1-percent, and 0.2-percent annual-chance floods (FEMA, 2023b).”
Also, the following point about uncertainty is added to Section 5. (Summary and Conclusion):
“The estimations are impacted by high uncertainty related to the unpredictable nature of flood occurrence and the generality of the flood loss functions.”
- How the whole analysis would change if levees or other hydraulic protections would be built is not even taken into consideration.
Reply: Thank you for pointing this out. The current system of levees and other hydraulic protections are already considered in the analysis, but our work cannot anticipate future changes to this network. We agree that we need to clarify this point in the article. Accordingly, we have added the following to Section 3. (Case Study):
“Furthermore, it is vital to acknowledge that the metropolitan New Orleans area is protected by various flood protection systems, such as levees, pumping stations, and flood gates (Wilkins et al., 2008), so our analysis incorporates the effect of the current flood protection infrastructure.”
References:
Wilkins, J. G., Emmer, R. E., Hwang, D., Kemp, G. P., Kennedy, B., Mashriqui, H., et al. (2008). Louisiana Coastal Hazard Mitigation Guidebook. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Sea Grant College Program. Available online at: https://tamug-ir.tdl.org/ handle/1969.3/28993
- I believe that a single case study is not enough to provide a methodology that can be straightforwardly generalized and extended to other cases with different characteristics (both from a merely construction point of view, for example multi-family houses and, in particular, from the hydrological point of view). This definetely does not contribute to the study strength and does not make it far-reaching and of broad interest.
Reply: Thank you for your comment. It is important to clarify that the methodology utilizes inundation data corresponding to each specific address. While this study is limited to one-story, single-family homes, the methodology is developed generally and can be adapted to other types of homes and varying input requirements. We agree that our study's findings may not applicable everywhere, but the purpose of the specific case study is to understand specific situation as a starting point for more research. Our goal is to provide a practical example that demonstrates the methodology. In the last two lines of original text, we already explain that:
“The results highlight the need to evaluate the life-cycle benefits of freeboard at a single-building level, to allow for a more localized and detailed assessment. Extending this method to multi-family rentals and upscaling to estimate community-level will further assist in enhancing resilience to the flood hazard.”
In our revised version, we have incorporated the below text into the summary to better show the contribution and limitation of our study.
“Despite the limitations and the fact that our study's findings may not be applicable everywhere, the methodology proposed in this study provides a novel framework for quantifying life-cycle benefit of freeboard for single-family rentals through LCBCA. To the best knowledge of the authors, there are no studies available applying a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis for the landlord, tenant, and insurer.”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2022-222-AC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 777 | 197 | 31 | 1,005 | 58 | 17 | 17 |
- HTML: 777
- PDF: 197
- XML: 31
- Total: 1,005
- Supplement: 58
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
8 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Homeowner flood risk and risk reduction from home elevation between the limits of the 100- and 500-year floodplains A. Al Assi et al. 10.3389/feart.2023.1051546
- A data-driven spatial approach to characterize the flood hazard R. Mostafiz et al. 10.3389/fdata.2022.1022900
- Flood risk assessment for residences at the neighborhood scale by owner/occupant type and first-floor height A. Al Assi et al. 10.3389/fdata.2022.997447
- Material quantities and estimated construction costs for new elevated IRC 2015-compliant single-family home foundations Y. Kodavatiganti et al. 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1111563
- Cost-effectiveness of federal CDBG-DR Road Home Program mitigation assistance in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana A. Al Assi et al. 10.1007/s11069-023-05904-3
- FloodSafeHome: evaluating financial benefits and savings of freeboard for improved decision-making in flood risk mitigation C. Friedland et al. 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1060901
- Flood damage and shutdown times for industrial process facilities: a vulnerability assessment process framework C. Friedland et al. 10.3389/frwa.2023.1292564
- Analytical advances in homeowner flood risk quantification considering insurance, building replacement value, and freeboard M. Rahim et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1180942