This page provides information on the Flood Poverty Project which was part of the Resilient Roch Flood and Coastal Resilience Innovation Programme (FCRIP). It introduces the project, explains why it was done, the key findings and the outcomes of it.
The Flood Poverty Project was part of the Resilient Roch Flood and Coastal Resilience Innovation Programme (FCRIP). It focused on the correlation and causation between deprivation and flooding within two deprived communities, Littleborough and Wardleworth, in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. The project was funded by the North West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and undertaken in partnership with Rochdale Borough Council and the National Flood Forum. The project was designed to explore the links between flooding, housing and poverty in deprived areas and assess the challenges and barriers poorer communities face in improving flood resilience.
As part of the project, desk-based reviews, questionnaires and interviews took place with residents and stakeholders as part of the social vulnerability mapping and assessment process. Property Flood Resilience (PFR) health checks were carried out on 162 properties, in addition to the setting up of focus groups and the delivery of workshops focussing on flooding, housing and placemaking, PFR energy retrofit, and financial resilience.
The project was undertaken to take a deeper look at some of the circumstances and disadvantages present in deprived communities which create barriers to flood resilience. It also aimed to assess the challenges and practicalities of retrofitting property flood resilient adaptation to homes and housing stock, as well as the ongoing requirements needed for long-term success. The project sought to identify and understand the visible and hidden disadvantages and generate a body of evidence in making recommendations to help address the issues faced by disadvantaged communities in supporting them to become more prepared and resilient to the effects of flooding.
The project found strong links between flooding and deprivation, identifying that housing in low-cost areas is cheaper because it is in poorer condition and/or it is at risk of flooding, with many landlords unable to afford to invest in housing stock to maintain habitability. The project found that people with fewer resources move to areas with cheaper housing, sometimes buying and owning property, but often renting. Housing stock is often poorly built or maintained, making it more vulnerable to the effects of flooding.
Deprived communities are also at a particular disadvantage in terms of financial resilience, including unemployment, low-incomes and debt challenges. Statistics published by WPI Economics showed a link between low-income renters and the lack of uptake of contents insurance, identifying financial resilience as a key barrier to flood resilience. With insurance being a significant factor in helping people to recover from a flood event and with larger numbers of rented properties and low-income households present in deprived areas, the uptake of contents insurance for rented households in the project areas was particularly low.
Around a third of those surveyed stated that they had contents insurance, a third stated that they didn’t have contents insurance, and around a third stated that they did not know. Conversations with social housing providers around low-cost social housing contents insurance policies found that around only 15% of tenants had contents insurance or had acquired contents insurance as a benefit through their bank accounts.
It was found that there was a poor understanding of the value of insurance, particularly amongst younger people, with assumptions that landlords provided insurance. It was also discovered that there were additional barriers to insurance, meaning many people couldn’t either afford or access insurance for a variety of different reasons, including the lack of digital access and computer literacy in dealing with insurance and comparison websites, as well as poor language skills and the understanding of technical language used in the insurance industry and documents.
Where people would have traditionally bypassed these challenges by visiting an insurance broker and dealing with a person face-to-face, the decline in high street insurance brokers not only made insurance less accessible, but the lack of a visual reminder of seeing a high street insurance agent helped to move the concept of insurance even further from people’s agendas. Insurance was simply not affordable, or a priority for many of those surveyed.
With no legal requirements for landlords to insure rented properties, following a flood event, rented properties may not be dried out or reinstated, leaving tenants still having to pay rent whilst living in damp and mouldy homes resulting in health issues. Many landlords, lettings and management agents were not always interested in, or clear about, their responsibilities. Those without insurance were left particularly vulnerable, having to bear the costs of recovery as best they could. While charity and community donations of white goods and furniture might be available, the cost of recovery and reinstatement was a contributing factor in putting families and households further into deprivation and poverty.
The project also identified that disadvantaged communities are largely unable to afford PFR, and that any grants schemes that might be available would never cover the costs of PFR installation or maintenance. Furthermore, the long-term maintenance of property and PFR measures cannot be assumed in disadvantaged areas without support from third parties such as the local authority, LLFAs and housing providers. Therefore, the expectation on households and property owners to maintain PFR is ineffective. It was found that addressing PFR and energy efficiency alongside the poor build quality of housing stock addresses both flood resilience and improves quality of life. However, wider considerations around property condition also needed to be addressed with dilapidation surveys and accommodation works to support futureproofing.
Additionally, it was also found that there was a lack of flood, water and climate literacy amongst both communities and professional stakeholders, and that some level of education and awareness raising was also required. It was also found that there were many existing networks including faith-based, civil society and advocacy organisations already working within these communities, and that as important stakeholders who were keen to get involved, opportunities were available for engagement and facilitation to help address some of these challenges.
The Flood Poverty Report highlighted that an understanding of flood risk, community and place was important. Addressing the issue of flood poverty in building resilient communities in deprived areas isn’t just a single flood risk management sector delivery issue. Because it’s easier for financially resilient communities to become flood resilient communities, funding, investment and delivery should go beyond the usual means and that strategic co-ordination and integration across a range of sectoral investment programmes is required when exploring options to invest in flood resilient communities via other sector programmes.
Additionally, the report recommended utilising already established networks across many sectors to deliver flood resilience, and that engagement with professional stakeholders and residential and business communities was required. In helping to break down barriers to insurance, a model for facilitation between people and the insurance industry was developed and implemented through workshops. This was done in collaboration with the insurance industry as a pilot trial, and included computer literacy training, the creation of community flood champions, and the training of support staff and volunteers from across different sectors as facilitators in helping to advise and signpost people and assist with the filling in of forms and insurance applications.
The Resilient Roch project also engaged with landlords, residents, social housing providers and tenants in raising awareness and education around PFR, recoverability and the importance of maintenance and looking after equipment and flood doors. The project also engaged with property lettings and management agents around their role as a stakeholder and the opportunities in encouraging the uptake of PFR, insurance and Build Back Better with landlords as a selling point.
The project also acquired a building within each of the two communities for use as a ‘flood hub’; a centre available for community members to visit and meet directly with insurance brokers, social housing providers. The hubs also served as a means for engagement around the capital flood scheme taking place, as well as education and awareness raising of the benefits of household sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and natural flood management (NFM).
In addition, initiatives such as the implementation of flood performance certificates could potentially drive poverty further, putting such communities at a further disadvantage. As such, it was identified that further investigation is required when looking to incentivise insurance and PFR when considering the lack of financial resilience, social issues and circumstances faced by disadvantaged communities when designing such initiatives.
The Resilient Roch project provided the opportunity to develop and implement many of the flood poverty report’s findings and recommendations, with evidence to help support policy delivery both locally and at a national level.
You can find more information on The Flood Poverty Project on the links below:
