Factors Determining Households' Preferences Regarding Flood Risk Transfer Instruments
Aim: The purpose of the study is to examine flood risk transfer instruments, such as flood insurance, from the households' perspective in order to determine households' preferences concerning the design and the features of these instruments as well as to indicate factors influencing and shaping these preferences. Design / test methods: The paper presents the outcomes of the social research revealing households preferences towards dealing with flood risk. The research was preceded by the scientific literature review of the theories and heuristics which could be relevant for decision making in the flood hazard proximity. The research, based on semi-structured interviews and questionnaires, was performed in the area of three river basins in Poland, namely: the Upper Narew river basin, the Lower Warta river basin and the Soła river basin. The research areas were chosen based on their geographical, economic and socio-cultural diversity in order to include these factors into analysis. Conclusions: Households preferences regarding flood risk transfer instruments are influenced by the households attitudes towards risk (level of risk aversity) and the perception of the level of flood hazard determined mostly by the past experiences. Originality / value of the paper: The original and primary research presented in the paper delivers the outcomes in terms of elicited households' preferences regarding flood risk transfer instruments and identified factors influencing these preferences.(original abstract)
- Aerts J. C. J. H., Botzen W. J., Clarke K. C., Cutter S. L., Hall J. W., Merz B., Michel-Kerjan E., Mysiak J., Surminski S. and H. Kunreuther, 2018. Integrating human behaviour dynamics into flood disaster risk assessment. Nature Climate Change, Macmillan Publishers Limited.
- Cavallo E. A., Noy I., 2009. The economics of natural disasters: a survey. Inter-American Development Bank.
- Cummins, J. D., 2008. CAT Bonds and Other Risk-Linked Securities: State of the Market and Recent Developments. Risk Management and Insurance Review 11.1 (2008): 23-47.
- Insurance Information Institute, 2017. The securitization of insurance risk: Catastrophe bonds. Available at: https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-catastrophe-bonds, access 15.06.2018.
- Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York.
- Kahneman D., Tversky A. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, XLVII (1979), 263-291.
- Koehler J., Rayner S., Katuva J., Thomson P., Hope R. 2018. A cultural theory of drinking water risks, values and institutional change. Global Environmental Change, Volume 50, May 2018, Pages 268-277.
- Michel-Kerjan E. O., 2010. Catastrophe economics: the national flood insurance program. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24, no. 4 (2010): 165-86.
- Stern N., 2006. Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change. Executive Summary. HM Treasury, London.
- Surminski S., 2010. Adapting to the extreme weather impacts of climate change-how can the insurance industry help? Climate Wise.
- Thompson M., Ellis R., Wildavsky A. 1990. Cultural Theory. Westview Press, Westport.
- Van Buuren, A., G. J. Ellen, and J. F. Warner. 2016. Path-dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Ecology and Society 21(4):43.
- Van Der Pligt J., 1989. Transgressive decision making: prospects and boundaries. Comment on J. Kozielecki's 'Towards a theory of transgressive decision making. Acta Psychologica 70 (1989), 71-75, North-Holland.
- Verweij M., Thompson M (eds.) 2001. Clumsy solutions for a complex world. Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Wieringa M., Kaufmanna M., Meesb H., Schellenbergerc T., Ganzevoortd W., Heggere D.L.T., Larruef C., Matczak P., 2017. Varieties of ﬂood risk governance in Europe: How do countries respond to driving forces and what explains institutional change?, Global Environmental Change 44 (2017), pp. 15-26.