Refine
Language
- English (28)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (28) (remove)
Keywords
- flood risk (6)
- adaptation (5)
- climate change adaptation (5)
- resilience (5)
- Flood risk (4)
- Insurance (4)
- disaster risk reduction (4)
- floods (4)
- risk management (4)
- vulnerability (4)
- Adaptation (3)
- Climate change (3)
- Germany (3)
- Risk reduction (3)
- emergency management (3)
- insurance (3)
- precaution (3)
- risk reduction (3)
- Affordability (2)
- Climate change adaptation (2)
- Flooding (2)
- Subjective well-being (2)
- capacities (2)
- climate change (2)
- effectiveness (2)
- flood recovery (2)
- gender (2)
- intangible impacts (2)
- integrated flood risk management (2)
- motivation (2)
- resources (2)
- risk governance (2)
- risk perception (2)
- societal equity (2)
- welfare (2)
- Company (1)
- Compound flood event (1)
- Discrete choice experiment (1)
- Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) (1)
- Gender equality (1)
- Groundwater (1)
- Intangible losses (1)
- Italy (1)
- LCGA (1)
- Levee (1)
- Loss modeling (1)
- Moral hazard (1)
- Payment vehicle (1)
- Poverty alleviation (1)
- Preparedness (1)
- Private businesses (1)
- Public policy (1)
- Public sector (1)
- Public-private partnerships (1)
- Risk perception (1)
- Riverine floods (1)
- Surface floods (1)
- Tangible losses (1)
- Vietnam (1)
- Vulnerability (1)
- Willingness to pay (1)
- adaptation behavior (1)
- attrition bias (1)
- attrition rate (1)
- breaches (1)
- capital (1)
- cost-benefit analysis (1)
- damage assessment (1)
- disaster risk (1)
- emergency (1)
- emergency preparedness (1)
- extreme weather (1)
- flood (1)
- flood events (1)
- flood risk management (1)
- individual recovery (1)
- longitudinal (1)
- panel (1)
- panel data (1)
- partial equilibrium modeling (1)
- protection motivation theory (1)
- public sector (1)
- reduction (1)
- response (1)
- risk perceptions (1)
- self-efficacy (1)
- social (1)
- social justice (1)
- socio-economic (1)
- spatial planning (1)
- subjective well-being (1)
- tipping-point (1)
- zoning (1)
Insights into the dynamics of human behavior in response to flooding are urgently needed for the development of effective integrated flood risk management strategies, and for integrating human behavior in flood risk modeling. However, our understanding of the dynamics of risk perceptions, attitudes, individual recovery processes, as well as adaptive (i.e., risk reducing) intention and behavior are currently limited because of the predominant use of cross-sectional surveys in the flood risk domain. Here, we present the results from one of the first panel surveys in the flood risk domain covering a relatively long period of time (i.e., four years after a damaging event), three survey waves, and a wide range of topics relevant to the role of citizens in integrated flood risk management. The panel data, consisting of 227 individuals affected by the 2013 flood in Germany, were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and latent class growth analysis (LCGA) to utilize the unique temporal dimension of the data set. Results show that attitudes, such as the respondents' perceived responsibility within flood risk management, remain fairly stable over time. Changes are observed partly for risk perceptions and mainly for individual recovery and intentions to undertake risk-reducing measures. LCGA reveal heterogeneous recovery and adaptation trajectories that need to be taken into account in policies supporting individual recovery and stimulating societal preparedness. More panel studies in the flood risk domain are needed to gain better insights into the dynamics of individual recovery, risk-reducing behavior, and associated risk and protective factors.
Developing countries are increasingly impacted by floods, especially in Asia. Traditional flood risk man-agement, using structural measures such as levees, can have negative impacts on the livelihoods of social groups that are more vulnerable. Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) provides a complementary approach that is potentially more inclusive of groups that are commonly described as more vulnerable, such as the poor and women. However, there is a lack of disaggregated and quantitative information on the potential of EbA to support vulnerable groups of society. This paper provides a quantitative analysis of the differ-ences in vulnerability to flooding as well as preferences for EbA benefits across income groups and gen -der. We use data collected through a survey of households in urban and rural Central Vietnam which included a discrete choice experiment on preferences for ecosystem services. A total of 1,010 households was surveyed during 2017 through a random sampling approach. Preferences are measured in monetary and non-monetary terms to avoid issues that may arise from financial constraints faced by respondents and especially the more vulnerable groups. Our results reveal that lower income households and women are overall more vulnerable than their counterparts and have stronger preferences for the majority of the EbA benefits, including flood protection, seafood abundance, tourism, and recreation suitability. These findings strongly indicate that EbA is indeed a promising tool to support groups of society that are espe-cially vulnerable to floods. These results provide crucial insights for future implementation of EbA pro-jects and for the integration of EbA with goals targeted at complying with the Sendai Framework and Sustainable Development Goals. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Risk-based insurance is a commonly proposed and discussed flood risk adaptation mechanism in policy debates across the world such as in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. However, both risk-based premiums and growing risk pose increasing difficulties for insurance to remain affordable. An empirical concept of affordability is required as the affordability of adaption strategies is an important concern for policymakers, yet such a concept is not often examined. Therefore, a robust metric with a commonly acceptable affordability threshold is required. A robust metric allows for a previously normative concept to be quantified in monetary terms, and in this way, the metric is rendered more suitable for integration into public policy debates. This paper investigates the degree to which risk-based flood insurance premiums are unaffordable in Europe. In addition, this paper compares the outcomes generated by three different definitions of unaffordability in order to investigate the most robust definition. In doing so, the residual income definition was found to be the least sensitive to changes in the threshold. While this paper focuses on Europe, the selected definition can be employed elsewhere in the world and across adaption measures in order to develop a common metric for indicating the potential unaffordability problem.
The affordability of property-level adaptation measures against flooding is crucial due to the movement toward integrated flood risk management, which requires the individuals threatened by flooding to actively manage flooding. It is surprising to find that affordability is not often discussed, given the important roles that affordability and social justice play regarding flood risk management. This article provides a starting point for investigating the potential rate of unaffordability of flood risk property-level adaptation measures across Europe using two definitions of affordability, which are combined with two different affordability thresholds from within flood risk research. It uses concepts of investment and payment affordability, with affordability thresholds based on residual income and expenditure definitions of unaffordability. These concepts, in turn, are linked with social justice through fairness concerns, in that, all should have equal capability to act, of which affordability is one avenue. In doing so, it was found that, for a large proportion of Europe, property owners generally cannot afford to make one-time payment of the cost of protective measures. These can be made affordable with installment payment mechanisms or similar mechanisms that spread costs over time. Therefore, the movement toward greater obligations for flood-prone residents to actively adapt to flooding should be accompanied by socially accessible financing mechanisms.
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
Flood risk will increase in many areas around the world due to climate change and increase in economic exposure. This implies that adequate flood insurance schemes are needed to adapt to increasing flood risk and to minimise welfare losses for households in flood-prone areas. Flood insurance markets may need reform to offer sufficient and affordable financial protection and incentives for risk reduction. Here, we present the results of a study that aims to evaluate the ability of flood insurance arrangements in Europe to cope with trends in flood risk, using criteria that encompass common elements of the policy debate on flood insurance reform. We show that the average risk-based flood insurance premium could double between 2015 and 2055 in the absence of more risk reduction by households exposed to flooding. We show that part of the expected future increase in flood risk could be limited by flood insurance mechanisms that better incentivise risk reduction by policyholders, which lowers vulnerability. The affordability of flood insurance can be improved by introducing the key features of public-private partnerships (PPPs), which include public reinsurance, limited premium cross-subsidisation between low- and high-risk households, and incentives for policyholder-level risk reduction. These findings were evaluated in a comprehensive sensitivity analysis and support ongoing reforms in Europe and abroad that move towards risk-based premiums and link insurance with risk reduction, strengthen purchase requirements, and engage in multi-stakeholder partnerships.
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.
Extreme weather resilience has been defined as being based on three pillars: resistance (the ability to lower impacts), recovery (the ability to bounce back), and adaptive capacity (the ability to learn and improve). These resilience pillars are important both before and after the occurrence of extreme weather events. Extreme weather insurance can influence these pillars of resilience depending on how particular insurance mechanisms are structured. We explore how the lessons learnt from the current best insurance practices can improve resilience to extreme weather events. We employ an extensive inventory of private property and agricultural crop insurance mechanisms to conduct a multi-criteria analysis of insurance market outcomes. We draw conclusions regarding the patterns in the best practice from six European countries to increase resilience. We suggest that requirements to buy a bundle extreme weather event insurance with general insurance packages are strengthened and supported with structures to financing losses through public-private partnerships. Moreover, support for low income households through income vouchers could be provided. Similarly, for the agricultural sector we propose moving towards comprehensive crop yield insurance linked to general agricultural subsidies. In both cases a nationally representative body can coordinate the various stakeholders into acting in concert.
A growing focus is being placed on both individuals and communities to adapt to flooding as part of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Adaptation to flooding requires sufficient social capital (linkages between members of society), risk perceptions (understanding of risk), and self-efficacy (self-perceived ability to limit disaster impacts) to be effective. However, there is limited understanding of how social capital, risk perceptions, and self-efficacy interact. We seek to explore how social capital interacts with variables known to increase the likelihood of successful adaptation. To study these linkages we analyze survey data of 1010 respondents across two communities in Thua Tien-Hue Province in central Vietnam, using ordered probit models. We find positive correlations between social capital, risk perceptions, and self-efficacy overall. This is a partly contrary finding to what was found in previous studies linking these concepts in Europe, which may be a result from the difference in risk context. The absence of an overall negative exchange between these factors has positive implications for proactive flood risk adaptation.
The intangible impacts of floods on welfare are not well investigated, even though they are important aspects of welfare. Moreover, flooding has gender based impacts on welfare. These differing impacts create a gender based flood risk resilience gap. We study the intangible impacts of flood risk on the subjective well-being of residents in central Vietnam. The measurement of intangible impacts through subjective well-being is a growing field within flood risk research. We find an initial drop in welfare through subjective well-being across genders when a flood is experienced. Male respondents tended to recover their welfare losses by around 80% within 5 years while female respondents were associated with a welfare recovery of around 70%. A monetization of the impacts floods have on an individual’s subjective well-being shows that for the average female respondent, between 41% to 86% of annual income would be required to compensate subjective well-being losses after 5 years of experiencing a flood. The corresponding value for males is 30% to 57% of annual income. This shows that the intangible impacts of flood risk are important (across genders) and need to be integrated into flood (or climate) risk assessments to develop more socially appropriate risk management strategies.