@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}
}
@article{BouwerPapyrakisPoussinetal.2014,
  author    = {Bouwer, Laurens M. and Papyrakis, Elissaios and Poussin, Jennifer and Pfurtscheller, Clemens and Thieken, Annegret},
  title     = {The costing of measures for natural hazard mitigation in Europe},
  series = {Natural hazards review},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Natural hazards review},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {American Society of Civil Engineers},
  address   = {Reston},
  issn      = {1527-6988},
  doi       = {10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000133},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The literature on the costing of mitigation measures for reducing impacts of natural hazards is rather fragmented. This paper provides a concise overview of the current state of knowledge in Europe on the costing of mitigation measures for the reduction of natural hazard risks (droughts, floods, storms and induced coastal hazards as well as alpine hazards) and identifies knowledge gaps and related research recommendations. Furthermore, it provides a taxonomy of related mitigation options, classifying them into nine categories: (1) management plans, land-use planning, and climate adaptation; (2) hazard modification; (3) infrastructure; (4) mitigation measures (stricto sensu); (5) communication in advance of events; (6) monitoring and early warning systems; (7) emergency response and evacuation; (8) financial incentives; and (9) risk transfer (including insurance). It is found that the costing of mitigation measures in European and in other countries has almost exclusively focused on estimating direct costs. A cost assessment framework that addresses a range of costs, possibly informed by multiple stakeholders, would provide more accurate estimates and could provide better guidance to decision makers. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.},
  language  = {en}
}