Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Pages 1-6

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 1...
... This report examines damage to the structure. Charging higher premiums current NFIP methods for calculating risk-based rates for structures expected to suffer greater flood damage for negatively elevated structures; identifies changes in would make people aware of their flood risk and would analysis methods and data collection that are needed transfer the cost of losses from taxpayers to property to support risk-based premiums; and discusses the owners.
From page 2...
... The model prediction results elevation–exceedance probability functions, referred are summarized in reports and portrayed on Flood to as PELV curves. The curves, which were developed Insurance Rate Maps, which show water surface eleva- from flood studies in the early 1970s, represent natutions, floodplain boundaries, zones of flood severity, ral watershed, channel, and tidal and wind behaviors and other information.
From page 3...
... The NFIP information needed to determine the 1 percent annual uses the same method to calculate risk-based rates for chance exceedance elevation, it could be easily expanded negatively elevated structures, but requires additional to determine more frequent water surface elevations. information to be collected on building construction and contents value, a more detailed review of the policy Conclusion 2.  Averaging the average annual loss over application, and possibly verification of building con- a large set of PELV curves leads to rate classes that en
From page 4...
... appropriate PELV curve or category of water surface elevation–exceedance probability functions. Conclusion 5.  Levees may reduce the flood risk for negatively elevated structures, even if they do not Conclusion 3.  NFIP claims data for a given depth of meet NFIP standards for protection against the flooding are highly variable, suggesting that inunda­ 1 percent annual chance exceedance flood.
From page 5...
... New Approach: A Comprehensive Risk Assessment SUPPORTING DATA Conclusion 8.  Modern technologies, including analysis tools and improved data collection and The third and fourth tasks of the committee conmanagement capabilities, enable the development cern collecting and updating engineering, hydrologic, and use of comprehensive risk assessment methods, and property assessment data needed for implementing which could improve NFIP estimates of flood loss. risk-based premiums for negatively elevated structures A comprehensive risk assessment would describe risk (Box S.1)
From page 6...
... Structure characteristics would prehensive risk analysis methodology and developing have to be updated after a major renovation. site-specific flood hazard descriptions, models that predict damage from multiple drivers, and probabiConclusion 10.  The lack of uniformity and control listic models that describe the performance of flood over the methods used to determine structure re- risk reduction measures would yield a much improved placement cost values and the insufficient quality assessment of flood losses, and thereby strengthen the control of NFIP claims data undermine the accuracy foundation for rate setting.

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.