Abstract
This dissertation examines how insurers price climate-related flood risk for United Kingdom households and evaluates the consequent implications for insurance affordability. Employing a literature synthesis methodology, the research draws upon peer-reviewed academic sources, government documentation, and policy analyses to investigate the mechanisms through which climate risk enters household insurance pricing. The findings reveal that UK insurers principally utilise catastrophe models and actuarial data to estimate location-specific flood probabilities, driving premiums toward risk-reflective levels. However, the Flood Re public–private reinsurance scheme, operational since 2016, substantially mediates this pricing by offering fixed, non–risk-based tariffs that cross-subsidise high-risk properties. While Flood Re currently halves average flood premiums for eligible properties, thereby enhancing affordability, the scheme’s transitional nature raises significant concerns regarding long-term sustainability. Under projected climate change scenarios, the gap between subsidised and risk-based premiums will widen considerably, potentially rendering insurance unaffordable or unavailable for vulnerable, lower-income households. The dissertation concludes that sustaining both affordability and meaningful risk signals necessitates coordinated investment in physical risk reduction measures alongside carefully targeted social support mechanisms.
Introduction
Climate change represents one of the most significant challenges facing contemporary societies, with profound implications for economic systems, infrastructure, and household welfare. Among the myriad consequences of a changing climate, the increased frequency and severity of flood events poses particular challenges for the insurance industry and the households it serves. In the United Kingdom, where approximately 5.2 million properties are at risk of flooding, the intersection of climate risk and insurance affordability has emerged as a critical policy concern requiring urgent scholarly attention (Environment Agency, 2019).
The UK operates a largely private home insurance market wherein flood coverage is bundled into standard household policies (Keskitalo, Vulturius and Scholten, 2014). This arrangement differs markedly from many international contexts where flood insurance is either government-provided or purchased separately. While full insurance coverage is not legally mandated, mortgage lenders effectively require it, meaning that insurance availability and affordability carry significant implications for housing markets, wealth accumulation, and social equity.
The academic importance of this topic derives from several interconnected considerations. First, insurance pricing serves as a crucial mechanism for signalling risk to households, developers, and policymakers, potentially influencing land-use decisions and adaptive behaviours. Second, the affordability of insurance determines whether households can transfer catastrophic risks or must bear them entirely, with substantial implications for financial resilience and post-disaster recovery. Third, the distributional consequences of alternative pricing approaches raise fundamental questions regarding equity, intergenerational justice, and the appropriate role of public intervention in private markets.
Socially and practically, understanding climate risk pricing matters because it directly affects household budgets, property values, and community viability. As climate change intensifies flood hazards in many areas, households face the prospect of escalating premiums, declining coverage, or both. For lower-income households in high-risk areas, these pressures may prove particularly acute, potentially forcing difficult choices between insurance, other essential expenditures, and residential location.
This dissertation addresses these concerns by systematically examining how UK insurers incorporate climate risk into pricing decisions and by evaluating the resulting implications for household affordability. Through synthesising existing research and policy evidence, it contributes to ongoing debates regarding the design of insurance arrangements that can simultaneously maintain market viability, provide meaningful risk signals, and ensure equitable access to coverage.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically examine the mechanisms through which UK insurers price climate-related flood risk for household properties and to evaluate the consequent implications for insurance affordability across different household types and risk categories.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives guide the research:
1. To identify and analyse the principal tools and methodologies employed by UK insurers in pricing flood risk, including catastrophe models, actuarial data, and historical loss experience.
2. To examine the role and functioning of the Flood Re reinsurance scheme in mediating the relationship between risk-reflective pricing and retail premiums for high-risk properties.
3. To evaluate the short-term and long-term implications of current pricing arrangements for insurance affordability, with particular attention to distributional effects across income groups and geographical areas.
4. To assess the tensions between maintaining affordable insurance coverage and providing meaningful price signals that encourage risk-aware behaviour and investment.
5. To identify policy approaches and mechanisms that might reconcile affordability concerns with the need for credible risk communication and sustainable insurance markets under conditions of climate change.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, drawing upon peer-reviewed academic sources, government publications, and policy documentation to address the stated research aim and objectives. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach for this inquiry given the multidisciplinary nature of the topic, which spans insurance economics, climate science, social policy, and housing studies.
The research process commenced with systematic searches of academic databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using search terms combining concepts related to flood insurance, climate risk pricing, household affordability, and the UK insurance market. Searches were conducted in English and restricted to publications from 2010 onwards to ensure currency, though seminal earlier works were included where appropriate.
Sources were selected based on relevance to the research objectives, methodological rigour, and publication quality. Peer-reviewed journal articles formed the primary evidence base, supplemented by government reports, regulatory documents, and publications from established research institutions. Sources were excluded if they lacked clear methodological descriptions, failed to provide adequate referencing, or derived from potentially unreliable outlets.
The analysis proceeded through several stages. Initially, sources were categorised according to their primary focus: insurance pricing mechanisms, affordability impacts, distributional effects, or policy responses. Subsequently, within each category, key findings were extracted and synthesised to identify areas of consensus, disagreement, and knowledge gaps. Throughout this process, particular attention was paid to the UK context, though comparative international evidence was incorporated where it illuminated domestic debates.
The synthesis approach enables integration of findings from diverse methodological traditions, including econometric analyses, agent-based modelling, qualitative case studies, and policy evaluations. While this methodological pluralism introduces challenges regarding comparability, it also provides richer insights than would be available from any single methodological perspective.
Limitations of this approach merit acknowledgement. Literature synthesis necessarily depends upon the quality and comprehensiveness of existing research, and gaps in the primary literature constrain the conclusions that can be drawn. Additionally, the rapidly evolving nature of both climate science and insurance markets means that findings may require updating as new evidence emerges. Nevertheless, this methodology provides a robust foundation for addressing the research objectives and contributing to scholarly understanding of climate risk pricing and affordability.
Literature review
The UK home insurance market and flood coverage
The United Kingdom operates a distinctive approach to household flood insurance that shapes how climate risk enters pricing decisions. Unlike many countries where flood coverage is provided through government programmes or purchased separately, the UK bundles flood coverage into standard household insurance policies sold through private markets (Keskitalo, Vulturius and Scholten, 2014). This arrangement emerged historically from industry agreements and government oversight rather than statutory mandate, though it has proven remarkably durable.
Full household insurance coverage is not legally required in the United Kingdom. However, mortgage lenders effectively mandate it as a condition of financing, meaning that insurance availability and affordability carry significant implications for property markets and household access to homeownership. This quasi-compulsory nature distinguishes the UK market and creates particular pressures to maintain broad coverage availability, even for high-risk properties that might otherwise be excluded or priced prohibitively.
The private market structure means that commercial considerations fundamentally shape coverage decisions. Insurers must balance the imperative to price risk accurately against competitive pressures, regulatory expectations, and reputational concerns. These tensions have intensified as climate change has increased flood hazards in many areas, placing growing strain on traditional approaches to risk assessment and pricing.
Catastrophe modelling and actuarial approaches to risk pricing
In principle, UK insurers seek to implement risk-based pricing for flood coverage, using sophisticated analytical tools to estimate location-specific hazard probabilities and potential loss severities. Catastrophe models, developed by specialist firms and increasingly by insurers themselves, integrate data on flood hazards, property exposures, and building vulnerabilities to generate probabilistic loss estimates (Ingels et al., 2024; Lyubchich et al., 2019).
These models typically decompose risk into three components. Hazard analysis draws upon hydrological modelling, historical flood records, and climate projections to estimate the probability that specific locations will experience flooding of given depths and durations. Exposure analysis identifies the properties and assets at risk, incorporating information on building characteristics, contents values, and occupancy patterns. Vulnerability analysis estimates the damage that would result from floods of different magnitudes, drawing upon engineering studies and claims experience.
Lyubchich et al. (2019) emphasise the growing integration of data science techniques with traditional actuarial methods in insurance risk assessment. Machine learning algorithms can identify patterns in complex datasets that escape conventional statistical approaches, potentially improving the granularity and accuracy of risk estimates. However, these authors also highlight challenges arising from non-stationarity in climate systems, which undermines the assumption that historical data reliably predicts future hazards.
The push toward increasingly granular, risk-reflective pricing has significant implications for households. Properties in high-risk locations face the prospect of substantially higher premiums as models more precisely capture their elevated hazard exposure. Ingels et al. (2024) note that while improved risk assessment enhances overall market efficiency, it also creates affordability challenges for households in areas identified as particularly vulnerable.
The Flood Re reinsurance scheme
Recognising that purely risk-based pricing would render flood insurance unaffordable or unavailable for many high-risk properties, the UK government and insurance industry established the Flood Re reinsurance scheme in 2016. This public–private partnership allows participating insurers to cede the flood portion of household policies to a pooled reinsurance facility, enabling them to offer retail premiums below fully risk-reflective levels for eligible properties (Garbarino, Guin and Lee, 2024; Surminski and Eldridge, 2017).
Flood Re operates through a distinctive tariff structure. Rather than charging insurers premiums based on the flood risk of individual properties, the scheme applies fixed rates determined by council tax bands. This flat pricing structure deliberately dampens the relationship between hazard levels and insurance costs, providing substantial implicit subsidies to high-risk properties while maintaining nominal premiums that remain affordable for most households.
The scheme is funded through two mechanisms. Participating insurers pay cession premiums to transfer flood risk to the pool, and all household insurers contribute to a levy that supplements these revenues. Crick, Jenkins and Surminski (2018) estimate this levy at approximately £10.50 per policy, representing a modest cross-subsidy from lower-risk to higher-risk households across the entire market.
Several studies have examined Flood Re’s design and operation. Dubbelboer et al. (2017) developed an agent-based model of UK flood insurance markets, finding that the scheme substantially improves coverage availability in high-risk areas. Jenkins et al. (2017) similarly conclude that Flood Re maintains market functioning under current conditions, though they raise concerns about long-term sustainability as climate change intensifies.
Surminski and Eldridge (2017) provide a comprehensive assessment of Flood Re within the broader context of rising flood risk. They note that while the scheme addresses immediate availability and affordability concerns, its design creates tensions with risk signalling objectives. By insulating households from the full costs of flood exposure, cross-subsidised pricing may discourage adaptive behaviours and perpetuate development in hazardous locations.
Affordability impacts under current arrangements
Research consistently finds that Flood Re substantially improves insurance affordability for high-risk properties under current conditions. Garbarino, Guin and Lee (2024) estimate that the scheme approximately halves average flood premiums for eligible at-risk properties compared with what risk-reflective pricing would require. This reduction maintains coverage accessibility for households that might otherwise face prohibitive costs or outright refusal.
The cross-subsidy from lower-risk to higher-risk households represents a relatively modest burden in aggregate terms. At approximately £10.50 per policy, the levy constitutes a small fraction of typical premiums and an even smaller share of household income, particularly for higher-income households in low-risk areas. This distributional pattern means that the immediate costs of the scheme fall predominantly on those most able to bear them.
However, the affordability improvements under Flood Re are not distributionally neutral in their benefits. Garbarino, Guin and Lee (2024) present empirical evidence that cheaper insurance premiums are capitalised into higher property values in flood-prone areas, generating windfall gains for existing property owners. Critically, these gains accrue disproportionately to high-income households with high-value properties, who benefit most from premium reductions in absolute terms.
This capitalisation effect has important implications. On one hand, it suggests that flood risk information is indeed reflected in property markets, with insurance costs influencing valuations. On the other hand, the value gains from subsidised premiums may weaken long-run price signals, encouraging continued investment in risky locations and potentially exacerbating future losses.
Long-term sustainability and climate change projections
Flood Re was explicitly designed as a transitional arrangement, intended to facilitate an eventual return to risk-reflective pricing by the late 2030s (Jenkins et al., 2017; Surminski and Eldridge, 2017). This time-limited design reflects recognition that permanent subsidies would create problematic incentives while imposing growing fiscal burdens as climate change intensifies flood hazards.
Modelling exercises consistently project that the gap between subsidised and risk-based premiums will widen substantially under climate change scenarios. Jenkins et al. (2017) examine surface water flood risk in London using an agent-based model, finding that changing precipitation patterns and continued urban development in risky areas place increasing financial pressure on pooled reinsurance arrangements. Without adjustments, the implicit subsidy required to maintain current affordability levels grows considerably over time.
Dubbelboer et al. (2017) reach similar conclusions through their national-scale agent-based modelling. Under scenarios combining climate change with continued development in flood-prone areas, the Flood Re pool faces growing deficits that would require either increased levies, reduced subsidies, or external fiscal support. The authors suggest that without parallel investment in risk reduction, the scheme’s sustainability becomes increasingly doubtful.
Crick, Jenkins and Surminski (2018) explore how agent-based modelling can inform understanding of flood insurance dynamics under alternative policy scenarios. Their work emphasises that climate change is not the sole driver of growing risk; land-use decisions, urbanisation patterns, and investment in drainage infrastructure all contribute significantly. This multiplicity of factors suggests that insurance-focused solutions alone cannot address underlying sustainability challenges.
Distributional consequences and equity considerations
The shift toward more risk-based pricing carries significant distributional implications that merit careful consideration. Penning-Rowsell and Pardoe (2015) examine the distributional consequences of alternative flood risk management approaches in England and Wales, finding that risk-based pricing tends to shift costs onto households in deprived areas that face elevated flood exposure.
This pattern arises from the geographical concentration of flood risk in areas with lower property values and household incomes. Historical development patterns, constrained housing options for lower-income households, and limited capacity to absorb price increases combine to create particular vulnerability to affordability pressures. Penning-Rowsell and Pardoe (2015) argue that these distributional effects require explicit policy attention rather than treatment as inevitable market outcomes.
Tesselaar et al. (2020) develop a pan-European analysis of flood insurance affordability and uptake under climate change, with findings directly applicable to the UK context. They project substantial regional inequalities in affordability pressures, with some areas facing premiums that exceed reasonable proportions of household income. Under these conditions, insurance uptake declines, leaving households exposed to catastrophic flood losses without adequate financial protection.
The relationship between affordability and uptake is not merely theoretical. When premiums exceed households’ perceived risk and ability to pay, many choose to forego coverage entirely or accept policies with inadequate limits and high deductibles. This adverse selection dynamic undermines the fundamental risk-pooling function of insurance while concentrating residual risk among the most vulnerable populations.
Policy approaches to reconciling affordability and risk signals
Research increasingly emphasises that addressing the tension between affordability and risk signalling requires approaches extending beyond insurance pricing mechanisms alone. Several strands of policy-relevant scholarship merit consideration.
First, scholars highlight the importance of linking insurance arrangements to risk reduction investments. Hudson, Botzen and Aerts (2019) examine flood insurance arrangements across European Union countries, arguing that insurance can most effectively support climate adaptation when integrated with physical protection measures, property-level resilience improvements, and planning controls. In this view, insurance should incentivise and reward risk reduction rather than merely transferring existing risks.
Crick, Jenkins and Surminski (2018) similarly emphasise multi-stakeholder partnerships that connect insurance provision with risk reduction. Their agent-based modelling suggests that scenarios combining reformed pricing with substantial investment in flood defences and property-level protection measures offer the most promising paths to sustainable affordability. Without such parallel investment, neither pure market pricing nor indefinite subsidies provides adequate solutions.
Second, researchers advocate for targeted rather than broad-based support mechanisms. Ingels et al. (2024) argue that means-tested assistance, vouchers, or similar targeted instruments can protect vulnerable households while allowing prices to better reflect underlying risks. This approach aims to separate the affordability question (ensuring all households can access coverage) from the pricing question (ensuring premiums provide meaningful risk signals).
Hudson et al. (2016) explore trade-offs between affordability and risk reduction in the design of insurance premiums. They find that risk-based pricing more effectively incentivises adaptation than flat or subsidised approaches, but acknowledge that pure market pricing creates unacceptable burdens for some households. Their analysis supports combining risk-reflective base pricing with targeted subsidies for households demonstrably unable to afford coverage.
Kousky, Treuer and Mach (2024) extend this analysis through examination of alternative insurance and climate risk scenarios. They argue that sustainable arrangements require clear-eyed acknowledgement of trade-offs among competing objectives, with explicit rather than implicit subsidies and transparent allocation of costs among stakeholders. Opaque cross-subsidies, they suggest, are likely to prove fiscally or politically fragile as underlying costs grow.
Third, Hampton and Curtis (2022) situate flood insurance within broader governance frameworks for climate change adaptation. They conceptualise insurance as a potential bridge between household-level risk management and societal adaptation, capable of influencing individual behaviour while signalling systemic vulnerabilities requiring collective response. Realising this potential, however, requires governance arrangements that connect insurance markets to planning systems, infrastructure investment, and emergency management in coherent ways.
Discussion
The literature synthesised in this dissertation reveals a complex and evolving landscape of climate risk pricing for UK households, characterised by fundamental tensions between competing objectives and significant uncertainty regarding long-term trajectories. This discussion section critically analyses the key findings and their implications for the stated research objectives.
The dual logic of flood insurance pricing
UK flood insurance pricing reflects two distinct logics operating simultaneously. The actuarial logic, embedded in catastrophe models and historical loss analysis, pushes toward increasingly granular risk-based pricing that captures location-specific hazard exposure. The social logic, manifested through Flood Re and preceding industry agreements, seeks to maintain broad coverage availability and affordability even for properties where risk-based prices would be prohibitive.
These logics generate fundamentally different price signals with correspondingly different behavioural implications. Risk-based pricing communicates the expected costs of flood exposure, potentially influencing household location decisions, property-level investments, and community-level planning. Subsidised pricing, conversely, obscures these signals, potentially encouraging continued occupation and development in hazardous locations.
The current UK system, with Flood Re mediating between these logics, represents an uneasy compromise rather than a stable equilibrium. The scheme’s transitional design explicitly acknowledges that present arrangements cannot continue indefinitely, while the widening gap between subsidised and risk-reflective premiums under climate change projections indicates growing tensions that must eventually be resolved.
Affordability as a multidimensional challenge
Affordability emerges from this analysis as a more complex concept than simple premium levels might suggest. At minimum, three dimensions require consideration.
First, absolute affordability refers to whether premiums fall within household budgets in a meaningful sense. For households facing premiums that consume substantial proportions of income, coverage may be technically available but practically inaccessible. The evidence suggests that purely risk-based pricing would push many high-risk, lower-income households into this situation.
Second, relative affordability considers how flood insurance costs compare with other demands on household resources. Even premiums that appear affordable in isolation may prove burdensome when combined with housing costs, utilities, and other essential expenditures. This dimension highlights the importance of situating insurance affordability within broader analyses of household financial stress.
Third, perceived affordability incorporates households’ subjective assessments of value relative to cost. When premiums appear disproportionate to perceived risk—whether because flood hazards feel abstract, because past floods have been rare, or because households doubt coverage will be honoured—uptake declines even at objectively affordable levels. This psychological dimension complicates policy interventions focused solely on premium levels.
The capitalisation of insurance costs into property values adds further complexity. When cheaper premiums increase property values, as Garbarino, Guin and Lee (2024) demonstrate, initial purchasers capture affordability benefits while subsequent buyers face unchanged effective costs (higher prices offset by lower premiums). This dynamic raises questions about who truly benefits from subsidised insurance and over what time horizons.
Distributional implications and justice considerations
The distributional analysis reveals that alternative pricing approaches create distinct winners and losers across the income distribution and geographical areas. Risk-based pricing concentrates costs on households in high-risk areas, which disproportionately include lower-income populations with limited capacity to absorb price increases or relocate. Cross-subsidised approaches spread costs more broadly but may channel benefits to higher-income households with valuable properties in flood-prone locations.
These distributional effects raise fundamental justice questions that technical analysis alone cannot resolve. Is it equitable to require all households to subsidise insurance for those choosing to occupy risky locations? Alternatively, is it just to price vulnerable households out of coverage or out of homes they may have occupied for generations? Different philosophical frameworks and political perspectives yield divergent answers.
The intergenerational dimension adds further complexity. Subsidised pricing that encourages continued development in hazardous locations imposes costs on future generations who will face escalating climate risks and adaptation challenges. Present affordability gains may translate into future affordability crises as climate change intensifies and the accumulated stock of at-risk properties grows.
The sustainability question
Perhaps the most pressing concern emerging from this analysis involves the long-term sustainability of current arrangements. Multiple modelling exercises project growing financial pressure on Flood Re as climate change widens the gap between subsidised and risk-reflective premiums. Without adjustments, the scheme faces a trilemma: increasing levies on all policyholders, reducing subsidies for high-risk properties, or seeking external fiscal support.
None of these options is without difficulty. Significantly increased levies may prove politically contentious and economically burdensome, particularly if they substantially raise insurance costs for the majority of households. Reduced subsidies return to the affordability problems that motivated Flood Re’s creation, potentially leaving many households unable to access coverage. Fiscal support introduces dependence on government budgets and political priorities, which may prove unreliable foundations for long-term insurance arrangements.
The sustainability challenge is not merely financial but also institutional and political. Arrangements perceived as unfair, overly burdensome, or inadequately responsive to changing circumstances may lose legitimacy, undermining the cooperation between insurers, government, and households upon which functional flood insurance depends.
Pathways forward
The research literature points toward several complementary approaches that might reconcile affordability with sustainability and meaningful risk signals.
First, substantial investment in physical risk reduction can narrow the gap between subsidised and risk-based premiums by lowering underlying hazard levels. Flood defences, improved drainage, natural flood management, and property-level resilience measures all contribute to reducing expected losses and correspondingly reducing the premiums that actuarial models generate. This approach aligns insurance affordability with genuine risk reduction rather than mere risk transfer.
Second, reformed pricing structures that combine risk-reflective base premiums with targeted support for vulnerable households can maintain price signals while addressing affordability concerns. Vouchers, means-tested subsidies, or similar instruments can direct assistance to those who demonstrably need it while allowing prices to reflect risk for households capable of responding to those signals.
Third, stronger integration of insurance with planning systems can prevent accumulation of risk in the first place. If insurance pricing and availability inform development decisions—whether through explicit requirements or market mechanisms—future building can be directed away from the most hazardous locations, reducing the scale of affordability challenges that subsequent generations will face.
Fourth, improved risk communication can address the perception dimension of affordability. Households that understand their flood exposure may more readily accept premiums that accurately reflect it, particularly if they perceive meaningful risk reduction as achievable through their own actions.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined how UK insurers price climate-related flood risk for household properties and evaluated the consequent implications for insurance affordability. Through systematic synthesis of academic literature, policy documentation, and empirical evidence, it has addressed the five stated research objectives and generated insights relevant to ongoing scholarly and policy debates.
Regarding the first objective, the research has identified catastrophe models and actuarial analysis as the principal tools through which UK insurers estimate flood risk. These approaches integrate hazard, exposure, and vulnerability data to generate location-specific loss projections that increasingly push toward granular, risk-based pricing. However, data limitations, non-stationarity under climate change, and modelling uncertainties constrain the precision of these estimates.
The second objective has been addressed through detailed examination of Flood Re’s role in mediating between actuarial risk estimates and retail premiums. The scheme’s council tax band tariffs deliberately dampen the relationship between hazard levels and insurance costs, providing substantial implicit subsidies to high-risk properties while spreading costs across all household policyholders.
Regarding the third objective, the research has demonstrated that current arrangements substantially improve short-term affordability for high-risk properties, approximately halving average flood premiums for eligible households. However, long-term sustainability is doubtful, as climate change projections indicate widening gaps between subsidised and risk-reflective premiums that will place growing pressure on pooled arrangements.
The fourth objective has been addressed through analysis of tensions between affordability and risk signalling. Current cross-subsidies maintain coverage availability but weaken price signals, potentially encouraging continued occupation and development in hazardous locations. This tension cannot be permanently resolved but must be managed through explicit policy choices regarding acceptable trade-offs.
Finally, regarding the fifth objective, the research has identified several policy approaches that might reconcile competing concerns: substantial investment in physical risk reduction; targeted support mechanisms that separate affordability assistance from pricing; stronger integration of insurance with planning systems; and improved risk communication to address perception dimensions of affordability.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic understanding to practical policy implications. Climate change will intensify flood hazards over coming decades, placing growing pressure on insurance arrangements that currently maintain broad coverage availability. Purely market-based pricing would create unacceptable affordability burdens for vulnerable households, while indefinite subsidies are likely to prove financially and politically unsustainable. Navigating between these unpalatable extremes requires coordinated action across insurance markets, government policy, planning systems, and individual households.
Future research should address several questions that this synthesis has identified but cannot fully resolve. Empirical investigation of household responses to different pricing signals would illuminate behavioural dimensions that modelling exercises can only approximate. Comparative analysis of international approaches to flood insurance could identify transferable lessons and contextual factors that shape policy effectiveness. Longitudinal tracking of Flood Re’s financial position and market effects would provide evidence regarding sustainability trajectories. Finally, deliberative research engaging diverse stakeholders could illuminate acceptable distributions of costs and responsibilities that technical analysis alone cannot determine.
In conclusion, the pricing of climate risk for UK households represents a domain where insurance markets, public policy, climate science, and social equity intersect in complex ways. Maintaining affordable access to flood coverage while providing meaningful risk signals and ensuring long-term sustainability will require not merely pricing adjustments but fundamental reconsideration of how societies manage the growing risks that climate change creates.
References
Crick, F., Jenkins, K. and Surminski, S., 2018. Strengthening insurance partnerships in the face of climate change – Insights from an agent-based model of flood insurance in the UK. *The Science of the Total Environment*, 636, pp.192-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.239
Dubbelboer, J., Nikolic, I., Jenkins, K. and Hall, J., 2017. An Agent-Based Model of Flood Risk and Insurance. *Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation*, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3135
Environment Agency, 2019. *Flood and coastal erosion risk management: Long-term investment scenarios (LTIS) 2019*. Bristol: Environment Agency.
Garbarino, N., Guin, B. and Lee, J., 2024. The effect of subsidized flood insurance on real estate markets. *Journal of Risk and Insurance*. https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12491
Hampton, S. and Curtis, J., 2022. A bridge over troubled water? Flood insurance and the governance of climate change adaptation. *Geoforum*, 137, pp.36-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.08.008
Hudson, P., Botzen, W., Feyen, L. and Aerts, J., 2016. Incentivising flood risk adaptation through risk based insurance premiums: Trade-offs between affordability and risk reduction. *Ecological Economics*, 125, pp.1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.01.015
Hudson, P., Botzen, W. and Aerts, J., 2019. Flood insurance arrangements in the European Union for future flood risk under climate and socioeconomic change. *Global Environmental Change*, 58, 101966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101966
Ingels, M., Botzen, W., Aerts, J., Brusselaers, J. and Tesselaar, M., 2024. The state of the art and future of climate risk insurance modeling. *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*, 1541, pp.100-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15255
Jenkins, K., Surminski, S., Hall, J. and Crick, F., 2017. Assessing surface water flood risk and management strategies under future climate change: Insights from an Agent-Based Model. *The Science of the Total Environment*, 595, pp.159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.242
Keskitalo, E., Vulturius, G. and Scholten, P., 2014. Adaptation to climate change in the insurance sector: examples from the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. *Natural Hazards*, 71, pp.315-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0912-7
Kousky, C., Treuer, G. and Mach, K., 2024. Insurance and climate risks: Policy lessons from three bounding scenarios. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 121(8). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2317875121
Lyubchich, V., Newlands, N., Ghahari, A., Mahdi, T. and Gel, Y., 2019. Insurance risk assessment in the face of climate change: Integrating data science and statistics. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics*, 11(1), e1462. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1462
Penning-Rowsell, E. and Pardoe, J., 2015. The distributional consequences of future flood risk management in England and Wales. *Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy*, 33(5), pp.1301-1321. https://doi.org/10.1068/c13241
Surminski, S. and Eldridge, J., 2017. Flood insurance in England – an assessment of the current and newly proposed insurance scheme in the context of rising flood risk. *Journal of Flood Risk Management*, 10(4), pp.415-435. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12127
Tesselaar, M., Botzen, W. and Aerts, J., 2020. Impacts of Climate Change and Remote Natural Catastrophes on EU Flood Insurance Markets: An Analysis of Soft and Hard Reinsurance Markets for Flood Coverage. *Atmosphere*, 11(2), 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11020146
Tesselaar, M., Botzen, W., Haer, T., Hudson, P., Tiggeloven, T. and Aerts, J., 2020. Regional Inequalities in Flood Insurance Affordability and Uptake under Climate Change. *Sustainability*, 12(20), 8734. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208734
