No abstract

No abstract

To be aware of the potential for energy savings in their homes, individuals need specific energy-related and financial knowledge. In addition, they also need the cognitive skills to apply this knowledge, for example when it comes to the calculation of the lifetime cost of household appliances or energy-efficient renovations. This set of knowledge and skills is related to two literacy concepts, i.e. energy and financial literacy. In this paper, we propose a new concept of literacy that we call "energy-related financial literacy". Further, we present information on the level of financial literacy as well as on the level of energy-related financial literacy for a sample of European households. In the empirical part of the paper we estimate several ordered probit models in order to analyse the determinants of the level of energy-related financial literacy, with a particular interest to understanding the role of gender. Our results show that the level of energy-related financial literacy is relatively low and heterogeneous across the European countries. Moreover, the results confirm previous findings about the gender gap in financial literacy, with males being associated with higher levels of the index. We also identify such a gender gap for energy-related financial literacy.

Precision farming (PF) technologies can help to mitigate the environmental impact of agriculture by reducing fertiliser use and irrigation while saving cost for the farmer. However, these technologies are not widely adopted in Europe. We study farmers’ willingness to adopt PF technologies based on a choice experiment. Among other determinants, we explore the role of social influence for the valuation of PF technology features. The data are analysed using mixed and latent class logit models. Our results show that knowledge of fellow farmers who adopted the technology positively influences the valuation of PF technology features, stressing the importance of networks.

This paper presents a lab-in-the-field experiment with 2111 Dutch homeowners in floodplain areas to examine the impacts of financial incentives and behavioral motivations for self-insurance under different flood insurance schemes. We experimentally varied the insurance type (mandatory public versus voluntary private) and the availability of a premium discount incentive for investing in flood damage mitigation measures. This setup allowed us to examine the existence of moral hazard, advantageous selection and the behavioral motivations of individual agents who face these different insurance types, without the selection bias that makes a causal inference from survey studies problematic. The main results show that a premium discount can increase investments in self-insurance under both private and public insurance. Moreover, we find no support for moral hazard in our natural disaster insurance market, but we do find a substantial share of cautious people who invest both in private insurance as well as in self-insurance, indicating advantageous selection. The results have implications for the design of insurance schemes to cope with increasing natural disaster risks.

No abstract

In a world in which economic losses due to natural disasters are set to increase, it is essential to study risk reduction strategies, including individual homeowner investments in damage-reducing (mitigation) measures. In this lab experiment (N = 357), we investigated the effects of different financial incentives, probability levels, and deductibles on self-insurance investments in a natural disaster insurance market with compulsory coverage. In particular, we examined how these investments are jointly influenced by financial incentives, such as insurance, premium discounts, and mitigation loans. We also studied the influence of behavioral characteristics, including individual time and risk preferences. We found that investments increase when the expected value of the damage increases (i.e., higher deductibles, higher probabilities). Moral hazard is found in the high-probability (15%) scenarios, but not in the low-probability (3%) scenarios. This suggests that moral hazard is less of an issue in an insurance market where probabilities are low. Our results demonstrate that a premium discount can increase investment in damage-reduction, as can a policyholder's risk aversion, perceived efficacy of protective measures, and worry about flooding.

Flooding is one of the most significant natural disasters worldwide. Nevertheless, voluntary take‐up of individual damage reduction measures is low. A potential explanation is that flood risk perceptions of individual homeowners are below objective estimates of flood risk, which may imply that they underestimate the flood risk and the damage that can be avoided by damage reduction measures. The aim of this article is to assess possible flood risk misperceptions of floodplain residents in the Netherlands, and to offer insights into factors that are related with under‐ or overestimation of perceived flood risk. We analyzed survey data of 1,848 homeowners in the Dutch river delta and examine how perceptions of flood probability and damage relate to objective risk assessments, such as safety standards of dikes, as well as heuristics, including the availability heuristic and the affect heuristic. Results show that many Dutch floodplain inhabitants significantly overestimate the probability, but underestimate the maximum expected water level of a flood. We further observe that many respondents apply the availability heuristic.