• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

The Waikato Weather Bomb: Understanding the impact

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Losses vs. flooding type and depth

3. Economic Impact Assessment

4. Heavy Rain Warnings

5. Weather Forecasting

6. Relating Hazard Knowledge & Risk Perception to Impacts and Readiness

7. Conclusions

8. References

Acknowledgements

Appendix 1 MetService Severe Weather Warning Criteria

Appendix 2 Demographic data

Appendix 3 Residential Economic Impacts

Appendix 4 Business Economic Impacts

Appendix 5 Social data

Appendix 6 Domestic survey form

Appendix 7 Business survey form

Appendix 8 EQC insurance data

Appendix 9 AMI insurance data

Appendix 10 NZIER CGE Model Specification

Appendix 11 Residential questionnaire answers to free-response questions

Appendix 12 Business questionnaire answers to free-response questions

Appendix 5 Social data

5.1 Interpretation of prior experience

A general set of questions about prior experience and state of readiness for natural hazards was asked (Tables A5.1-5.2). In the high impact area of Coromandel, 20 % of respondents had experienced a previous flood event and 19 % two or more events (Table A5.1). This was significantly higher than in the other areas; the next highest was South Waikato, where only 9 % of the respondents had experienced one or more floods.

Table A5.1 Number of times your household has experienced flooding above floor level in this home while living at this address, including basements but excluding outhouses and garages.

Worst (i.e. the biggest impact) flooding household has experienced at this property was the weather bomb

5.2 Risk perceptions

In their model of hazard preparedness Paton et al. (2001) identified two important precursors of readiness-risk perceptions and hazard cognitions (the extent to which people discuss and think about hazards). Table A5.3 describes the extent to which people perceive the hazard as posing a specific threat to them or to their daily activities. In regard to risk perception, the results indicate low to moderate levels of perceived potential threat from flood hazards. With regard to hazard cognitions, Table A5.3 also indicates low to moderate levels of thought and discussion about flood hazards.

Table A5.3 Level of concern of respondent about the risk of floods

View level of concern of respondent about the risk of floods (large table)

Table A5.4 Respondent has seen any flood hazard maps for their community

5.3 Perceived readiness

Another important facet of readiness is the extent to which people perceive themselves, and others, as being prepared. Analysis of perception can identify behavior and attitudes that may be counterintuitive or contrary to the goals of education initiatives. Understanding perceptions allows us to assess how people are likely to receive hazard information and use it to put readiness measures in place, and how they will respond to warnings. The data in Table A5.5 reveal that Coromandel high and low impact respondents tended to rate their own individual readiness as being greater than that of their community as a whole and, most interestingly, also greater than that of the central and local government. For South Waikato and Coromandel bach owners this was the opposite-the readiness of the central and local government was perceived as being higher than that of the respondent.

Table A5-5 Level the respondent believes the following groups are prepared for future floods affecting their community

View level the respondent believes the following groups are prepared for future floods affecting their community (large table)

Table A5.6 Members of household have ever done

5.4 Searching for information

The data in Table A5.7 indicate that in the high impact Coromandel area, people had high levels of intention to seek information on flood risk and reduction activities, and to become involved with others to explore reduction options. Conversely, the levels of these intentions are low in all the other areas.

Table A5.7 As a result of this weather bomb event the respondent intends to:

View as a result of this weather bomb event the respondent intends to (large table)

5.5 Insurance

Tables A5.8 and A5.9 explore issues relating to insurance. Generally there was a very high level of insurance coverage reported (over 90 %) in all areas. Over 95 % of all respondents with insurance claims reported that their insurance companies have settled in a fair way. Around a third of high impact Coromandel residents reported that their insurance premiums had gone up (the level of the rise was not requested in the questionnaire) and 20 % claim to have had 'difficulty' getting insurance cover since the event. These figures are significantly higher than in the other areas, but the other areas still reported a significant level of increased premiums (18-20 % of respondents in non-high impact areas reported premium increases). The reported portion of respondents who found it difficult to get insurance cover since the event was very low in non-high impact areas (2-3 %). Given these indications of premium rises and 'difficulty' with insurance cover, further work to quantify and better describe these changes would be worthwhile.

Insured versus uninsured losses, and the impact of these losses on the local and regional economy are discussed in more detail in Section 3.

Table A5.8 Which of the following the respondent personally has and pays for themselves/jointly

Table A5.9 The respondent's insurance situation

View the respondent's insurance situation (large table)

Table A5.10 Volunteer organisations the respondent is involved in

5.6 Perceived responsibility

Misunderstandings in regard to perceived responsibility are also evident in Table A5.11, which indicates that respondents perceived the District Council and the Regional Council as being more responsible than themselves for their protection. Further work is required to assess the basis for this perception (e.g., the extent to which respondents differentiate structural mitigation from the need for them to deal with immediate personal consequences). Although this correlates with legislative roles and responsibilities for flood management for local government, it shows that the communities do not accept high levels of responsibility for protecting themselves and instead look to others to provide protection.

Table A5.11 Who's responsibility the respondent thinks it is to protect them from floods

View who's responsibility the respondent thinks it is to protect them from floods (large table)

5.7 Sense of community

Communities with a high level of social involvement are likely to have a higher level of readiness (Mileti 1999). Feelings of belonging and attachment for people and places encourage involvement in community mitigation (Bishop et al. 2000). However, this process may be linked more closely to the sense of shared fate that exists within a given vulnerable area. Levels of sense of community were reported at moderate to high levels (Table A5.12). The highest level being in the Coromandel high and low impacts areas, followed by South Waikato and finally by Coromandel bach owners with a moderate level of sense of community.

Table A5.12 How the respondent feels about living in their community

View how the respondent feels about living in their community (large table)

5.8 Self-efficacy

Another key determinant of intention formation is people's judgment regarding their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to achieve objectives or to act in specific ways (self-efficacy). The data in Table A5.13 indicates moderate levels of self-efficacy in all response areas.

Table A5.13 What the respondent thinks about life in their community

View what the respondent thinks about life in their community (large table)

5.9 Response efficacy

A moderating factor is respondents' perceptions of the physical, time and collaborative resources they have at their disposal (response efficacy). Mileti (1999) discusses the relationship between socio-economic factors and levels of readiness, with households with higher social economic status and non-minorities being better prepared than others. Given the mixed socio-economic status of the respondents in this study, we could expect relatively mixed levels of response efficacy. Table A5.14 indicates only moderate constraints for all items and indicates that these factors will exercise a moderate constraint on readiness and preparation. The slightly elevated standard deviation (s.d. generally 1.2 to 1.5) of responses in Table A5.14 relative to other qualitative responses in Tables A5.11 through A5.13 (s.d. generally 0.8 to 1.2) highlights the highly mixed response to this question.

Table A5.14 Extent to which the following might each prevent the respondent from preparing for floods

5.10 Outcome expectancy

In the model outlined above, the principal determinant of readiness was the respondent's outcome expectancy. Table A5.15 describes the level of outcome expectancy in the sample. These data indicate moderate levels of positive outcome expectancy in regard to the likely outcome or value of individual efforts to reduce risk. The level of expectation that a damaging flood is something that could occur in the future is high in all areas and the expectancy that they are too destructive to bother preparing for is low in all areas.

Table A5.15 Extent to which the respondent thinks that:

View the extent to which the respondent this that: (large table)