After introductory chapters reviewing matters such as flood defence responsibilities, flood characteristics and the measures that can be taken to prepare for flooding, the authors describe and discuss the results of research undertaken to establish benchmark standards for the drying out and reinstatement of flood damaged properties.
They devote chapters to the following aspects:
drying out flooded buildings;
reinstatement of flood damaged floors;
reinstatement of flood damaged walls;
reinstatement of flood damaged doors and windows; and
reinstatement of flood damaged utilities and fittings.
In the drying out chapter the experts were asked to state the usual method they used and to assess its effectiveness on a five‐point Likert scale. They were asked likewise to identify their preferred method and to assess its effectiveness. They were also asked similarly to indicate their usual and preferred methods of establishing whether buildings were sufficiently dry for repairs to commence, along with an assessment of the effectiveness of the methods
In the reinstatement chapters those surveyed were presented with 37 real‐life scenarios with a number of possible reinstatement options. Again they were asked to indicate their current and ideal strategy, either from the list provided or added to by the respondent, and its perceived performance. This time performance was assessed on a five‐point scale in terms of the following criteria:
cost of repair works;
appropriateness of the repair (quality);
time to conduct the repair; and
the expected percentage of satisfied customers.
In addition an overall performance criterion was established based on equal weighting of these separate components. The overall performance criteria were used as the basis of establishing benchmark repair strategies. In this the authors have introduced the basis for a standardised approach to flood repair assessment. Inclusion of the individual performance criteria also allows users to allocate their own weightings if desired.
However in the reviewer's opinion the approach is still based too much on the subjective judgement of the experts responding to the survey and the authors have quite rightly identified in their closing comments the need for further research to establish a scientific base for some of the judgements involved.
