@misc{HudsonBotzen2019,
  author    = {Hudson, Paul and Botzen, W. J. Wouter},
  title     = {Cost-benefit analysis of flood-zoning policies: A review of current practice},
  series = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Water},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Water},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {2049-1948},
  doi       = {10.1002/wat2.1387},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {One commonly proposed method to limit flood risk is land-use or zoning policies which regulates construction in high-risk areas, in order to reduce economic exposure and its vulnerability to flood events. Although such zoning regulations can be effective in limiting trends in flood risk, they also have adverse impacts on society, for instance by limiting local development of areas near the water. In order to judge whether proposed land-use or zoning policies are a net benefit to society, they should be accepted or rejected based on a societal cost-benefit analysis (CBA). However, conducting a CBA of zoning regulation is complex and comprehensive guidelines of how to do such an analysis are lacking. We offer guidelines for good practice. In order to assess the costs and benefits of zoning as a climate change adaption strategy, they should be assessed at a societal level in order to account for public good features of flood risk reduction strategies, and because costs in one area can be benefits in another region. We propose a multistep process: first, determine the spatial extent of the zoning policy and how interconnected the zoned area is to other locations; second, conduct a CBA using monetary costs and benefits estimated from an integrated hydro-economic model to investigate if total benefits exceed total costs; third, conduct a sensitivity analysis regarding the main assumptions; fourth, conduct a multicriteria analysis (MCA) of the normative outcomes of a zoning policy. A desirable policy is preferred in both the CBA and MCA. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Value of Water Science of Water > Water Extremes Human Water > Methods},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{HudsonBotzenPoussinetal.2019,
  author    = {Hudson, Paul and Botzen, W. J. Wouter and Poussin, Jennifer and Aerts, Jeroen C. J. H.},
  title     = {Impacts of flooding and flood preparedness on subjective well-being},
  series = {Journal of Happiness Studies},
  volume    = {20},
  journal   = {Journal of Happiness Studies},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Springer Science},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1389-4978},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10902-017-9916-4},
  pages     = {665 -- 682},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Flood disasters severely impact human subjective well-being (SWB). Nevertheless, few studies have examined the influence of flood events on individual well-being and how such impacts may be limited by flood protection measures. This study estimates the long term impacts on individual subjective well-being of flood experiences, individual subjective flood risk perceptions, and household flood preparedness decisions. These effects are monetised and placed in context through a comparison with impacts of other adverse events on well-being. We collected data from households in flood-prone areas in France. The results indicate that experiencing a flood has a large negative impact on subjective well-being that is incompletely attenuated over time. Moreover, individuals do not need to be directly affected by floods to suffer SWB losses since subjective well-being is lower for those who expect their flood risk to increase or who have seen a neighbour being flooded. Floodplain inhabitants who prepared for flooding by elevating their home have a higher subjective well-being. A monetisation of the aforementioned well-being impacts shows that a flood requires Euro150,000 in immediate compensation to attenuate SWB losses. The decomposition of the monetised impacts of flood experience into tangible losses and intangible effects on SWB shows that intangible effects are about twice as large as the tangible direct monetary flood losses. Investments in flood protection infrastructure may be under funded if the intangible SWB benefits of flood protection are not taken into account.},
  language  = {en}
}