Flood Hazard Demographics and NFIP Policy/Claims Analysis

Transcription

1 Flood Hazard Demographics and NFIP Policy/Claims Analysis ASFPM - Hartford, CT June 2013 Mohan Rajasekar Mark Crowell Andy Neal

2 Problem Statement NFIP A means of discouraging unwise occupancy of flood prone areas, yet occupancy of these areas has expanded since Risks continue to increase - 40 years after the program s inception, only 20% to 30% of individuals exposed to the flood hazard actually purchase insurance. The primary challenge: Optimize the NFIP to balance fiscal soundness, affordability of insurance, adequate coverage for those at risk, floodplain management (reduction of flood hazard vulnerability), economic development, individual freedoms, and environmental concerns.

3 Opportunity Summer Census Population and Housing Units Roughly two-thirds of the 27.3 million new U.S. residents between 2000 and 2010 lived in the southern and western states of Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado - the demographics of devastation. Map Modernization Expansion of the digital quilt Increased Spatial Resolution of Risk Exposure LandScan

4 Benefits Risk Identification Project Prioritization Impacted Population & Housing Units Augmented by Needs Data (CNMS) Risk Assessment Tangible Improvements in Resolution Risk Communication Targeted outreach based on Census 2010 Demographic Data Risk Mitigation, Areas with Large Mitigation Potential Cost-effectiveness of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs Evaluate Communities Commitment and Adherence to Floodplain Management Best Practices This study delivered crucial quantitative and geospatial data needed to analyze the current impact, reach, and future needs of the NFIP

5 Questions the Study (Part 1) Answered How many people currently reside within effective Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)? By CBG using LandScan How many housing units currently fall within effective SFHA? By CBG How did the Map Mod program affect the SFHA (increases/decreases)? How did Map Mod affect the identification of the number of people and structures in the SFHA?

6 Questions the Study (Part 2) Answered Where, relative to the SFHA, are NFIP policies and claims located? What is the extent of Zone Grandfathering within the NFIP policy base?

7 Comparison with 2010 Study SFHA DEMOGRAPHICS STUDY 2000 Census Block Groups Even Population Distribution Assumption TransAmerica / Core Logic 2005 Pre Map Mod Snap Shot 798 Counties with Sufficient NFHL Coverage for Comparison with Pre Map Mod

8 RAMPP 2010 Study 2011 LandScan as Population Source In Most Areas Provides Sub-Census Block Level Re-Distribution of Census 2010 Population Data February 2012 NFHL 1,750 Counties with Sufficient NFHL Coverage for Comparison with Pre Map Mod

9 Census 2010 Population Distribution Region VIII, 3.5% Region VII, 4.4% Census 2010 Population Distribution Region X, 4.1% Region I, 4.6% Region IX, 15.3% Region II, 10.2% Region III, 9.5% Region VI, 12.3% Region V, 16.6% Region IV, 19.5%

10 Distribution of Population within SFHA Region VIII, 1.6% Region VII, 3.9% Distribution of Population within SFHA Region X, 2.3% Region I, 3.0% Region IX, 9.7% Region II, 9.3% Region III, 6.2% Region VI, 19.3% Region IV, 37.0% Region V, 7.6%

11 Part 1 Results Tables

12 Part 1 Results Tables

13 Effects of Map Mod Distribution of Population Mapped in to SFHA Region VIII, 2.5% Region VII, 5.7% Region X, 2.3% Region I, 0.4% Region II, 14.0% Region III, 3.1% Region VI, 38.2% Region IV, 29.7% Region V, 1.9% Region IX, 2.2%

14 Effects of Map Mod Distribution of Population Mapped out of SFHA Region VII, 3.8% Region VIII, 2.5% Region X, 0.7% Region I, 0.9% Region VI, 3.4% Region V, 15.6% Region II, 7.7% Region III, 1.5% Region IV, 51.8% Region IX, 12.0%

15 Part 1 Detail Bottom Up Data Model Design Automation of Processes to Greatest Extent Practicable Zonal Statistic Based on Re-Sampled LandScan Population Totals per Reporting Area Based on Aggregates Zonal Results Outputs Include Population, Housing Unit, and Area Statistics

16 Reporting Areas Discrete, Topologically Flat Initial Requirements Political Boundaries Coastal vs. Riverine Anticipating Congressional Requests and Potential for Further Analysis Census Block Groups Congressional Districts Results from Parts 1 and 2 Can be Aggregated or Isolated to Any Reporting Area Resolution, or Combination Thereof

17 Part 2 Detail Geospatial and geocoding analyses that can support the assessment of the NFIP s actuarial soundness Geolocation of Nearly 16 Million Points Policies, Claims, Historic PRPs Proximity Determinations Nearest SFHA Nearest SFHA Type and Coastal vs. Riverine

18 Part 2 Results Summary Tables

19 Policy / Effective Zone Match

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30 31 April 30, 2013

31

32

33

34

35 Challenges Handling of PII Geocoding NFHL LandScan

36 Handling of PII Personally Identifiable Data Client Requirements RAMPP Strategy Firewall Data Handling Role Assignments Disassociation of Location Data from Personal Information to Allow for More Flexibility During Certain Phases

37 Geocoding Assumed Levels of Accuracy Limited Clean Up at this Scale ROOFTOP vs. INTERPOLATED Standardizing Input Address String from Policy and Claims Records Highlights Shortcoming in Policy Data Collection Systems

38 Geocoding Challenges Clustered or Poorly Interpolated Location Returns

39 Geocoding Summary Policy Data Geocoding Summary

40 NFHL Challenges Tracking Lack of Accurate Coverage Definition Topology Overlapping Polygons Slivers Presumably from LOMR Stitching Attribution Consistency

41 2011 LandScan Oak Ridge National Laboratory Product Represents Ambient Population Distribution Population Location by Probability Multi-Variable Dasymetric Model Day/Night Data Available Sub-Block Resolution in Most Areas Found that Population Totals within Certain Administrative Boundaries were Inaccurate

42 LandScan

43 LandScan Vs Census Block Group Vs Census Block

44 Utilizing Study Results to Hotspot and Understand BW12 Impacts BW12 CONSIDERATIONS

45 Defining the Need 1) Stakeholder Education 2) Stakeholder Needs 3) Variability of Localized Data Sets Necessary to consider a standardized BW12 approach as an organized analytical framework comprised of Conceptual, Logical and a Physical Model rather than a specific turn key application or a series of individual determinations/concepts.

46 A Data Model is an abstract representation of how data and information are represented and accessed Conceptual Model Process & Data Logical Model Physical Model

47 Current Opportunity Timing of BW12 and Sandy Completion of the NFHL/NFIP Policy and Claims Demographic Study Community Interest in Understanding the Implications of BW12 The Rebuild App

48 Integrated Adaption Assessment (Conceptual Models)

49 Questions answered by this task What goals and process will be used to guide the assessment? What county and community entities will be included in the assessment? What planning groups will be formed to guide the assessment? What neighboring county and community entities will we partner with in the assessment? What will be our stakeholder engagement strategy? Outcomes Form adaptation advisory group Form neighboring partner group Develop Stakeholder Engagement Plan and execute throughout Create transparency website Questions answered by this task What areas could be better aligned with federal programs to position for federal credits or grants? What regulatory strategies can be offered to influence the areas of priority? Outcomes Develop policy or other strategy recommendations Questions answered by this task What is the baseline impact of the BW12 changes? Where are the locations of current policies and historical NFIP claims? What actions can be taken to lower risk and insurance rates? What actions are likely to be taken based on cost vs. value? Where are the recovery vulnerable areas within the assessment area? Outcomes Create Adaptation GIS geodatabase populated with source data layers Add geo-located Policies and Claims data Add BW12 assessment layers Evaluate recovery cycle activities Score value and vulnerability Rollup scores at the block level Questions answered by this task What is the baseline of current CRS program activities? What can be done to lower CRS rating and increase NFIP insurance reductions to the public? What recommendations can be made to decrease flood risk by increasing insurance policy penetration? Outcomes Develop Flood Insurance Coverage Assessment Report to credit for CRS 372 Develop and prioritize recommendations Evaluate recommendations and per capita costs/savings

50 Questions answered by this task What are the current planned activities within the county? How will these activities affect the value and vulnerability scores from the BW12 assessment? What additional activities can be undertaken from the BW12 and CRS assessments? Outcomes Develop investment activities database Score and prioritize activities with wide improvement potential Perform scenario analysis on larger mitigation projects in relation to BW12 and CRS affects Use database results to develop rapid localized plans/views Questions answered by this task How can we more holistically approach the allocation of our ongoing activities? How can we better position for ongoing programmed funding activities? How can we incentivize private activities to align with our vision? Outcomes Develop funding strategy recommendations for ongoing activities, programmed funding initiatives, and private activities Questions answered by this task How will BW12 analysis help individuals? How will BW12 analysis help county planning and implementation? How can we help educate and inform the public? How can we partner better with our county neighbors? Outcomes Develop and present final report Develop media as designed within the outreach strategy Conduct BW workshop - basics Conduct BW workshop options and economics Develop dissemination website Develop property assessment web apps

51 ASFPM Showcase (Conceptual Model)

52 Building the Logical Model Existing Study Data must be Analyzed for providing Insights into: Relative Magnitude of Issues Hotspots of Interest Data Collection Efforts Needed Breadth of Knowledge Caveat Emptor

53 Statewide Plan Objectives Case Example Objectives for NC Provide an assessment of potential rate increases compared to current policy values in a geospatial format, Identify target areas or neighborhoods of concern where there may be patterns of significance or clusters of policies with the potential for very high actuarial rates. Identify strategies for reducing the impact of BW12 on current and future development

54 Framework Organization Framework intends to represent a flexible model through which a certain number of required attributes are garnered. Varying resolutions provide different reporting opportunities High quality, structure level data is a rarity Sampling techniques should be developed to model the BW12 Impact trends and used to extrapolate from or recalibrate statewide results

55 Step 1: Geocoding and Conflation Geocode Policy Data Match Policy Data to Building Footprints Integrate Tax Assessor Database Information Step 2: Analyze Policy Data Identify Policy Attributes Relevant to BW12 Actuarial Rate Triggers Determine Time Frame for Actuarial Rate Phase In Estimate Localized BW12 Financial Impact Determine Effects of Revised Map Maintenance SFHAs Step 3: Aggregate Results to Political Boundaries Census Block Group Community Sub Basins Custom Boundaries Provided by NC GTM Step 4: Review Hotspots for Mitigating the Impacts of BW12 Map BW12 Financial Impact Hotspots Present Mitigation Strategies CRS 370 Property Elevation Collection Grants Provide Recommendations on Limiting Impacts Recommend Actions for Potential CRS Rating Gains Conceptual Model, and Work Breakdown Structure

56 Best Case Scenario 1. Best case scenario, individual building footprints serve as the highest resolution units which can be flagged as impacted. Conflation of actual policy data a) This includes the ability to perform financial analyses such as actuarial rate calculations, and averaged annualized lost estimates, accounting for real world coverage totals. b) At such a resolution, mitigation strategy scenarios can also be triggered within the framework at a structure level such as buyout or structure elevation.

57 Difficulties and Options 1. Geocoding of Policy, Claims, Repetitive Loss, Severe Repetitive Loss, Elevation Certificates and Additional Localized Data Sets Such as Known Locations of Severe Damage as a Result of a Storm. a) Size of the Study and Ability to Conflate Geocoded Data should directly influence the route taken within the framework specifically the resolution which is chosen as the hub for reporting (CBG, Community etc.). 2. Lack of Policy Data 1. In some jurisdictions, policy data may not be available due to FEMA denial or a lack of community engagement on the issue. 1. the framework, through the abstractions in the system, can accommodate an alternate sources such as the tax assessors database for property locations within the SFHA.

58 Implications to North Carolina 59 April 30, 2013

59 Community Outreach Toolbox PDF maps identifying hotspots in a few selected areas; A set of metrics to help guide communities about the benefits in obtaining a better CRS rating; Information to help communities identify viable mitigation funds and projects for mitigation activities; New Higher Standard actions for communities to help reduce affect from BW12 on newly-mitigation properties and future development; and Outreach presentation slides for use by the NCFMP at various meetings with communities and/or other government agencies.

60 The Best Defense Mobile-friendly application for mobile web browsers (agnostic of OS type) Address-based results providing homeowners in BW12 Impacted areas, advice on the following: Elevation to reconstruct post-disaster, or Optionally Cost impacts of reconstruction Cost impacts to annual insurance premiums based on various First Floor Elevation (FFE) scenarios Savings or Losses over a 15 and 30 year period based on various reconstruction scenarios Qualitative estimate of confidence in the results presented to the user Option to refine results by allowing users to identify a specific property on a map and by providing their property s first floor elevation (FFE) and other building information Customized/Contextualized Help within App User Interface (UI) Scalable: Advisory services for additional areas of interest Additional tools and features that assist the users with their decisions towards resilience

61

62

63

64

65 ArcGIS Server 10.1 Client Application Architecture Applications Users (Mobile and Web Browsers) ArcGIS Online (AGOL) - Gateway IIS Web Server ArcGIS Web Adaptor Geoprocessing Services Rebuild Mobile App Geocoding Service LAG Service Reverse Geocoding Service Advisory Info Service Advisory Model Service Map Service ArcTool box 10.1 (GP Rebuild Tools) Map Layers Map Layers SQL Server 2012 /SDE

66 Web Processing Services

67 Discoverable on FEMA AGOL

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75