Little is known about why individuals place either a high or a very low value on mitigating risks of disaster‐type events, like floods. This study uses panel data methods to explore the psychological factors affecting probability neglect of flood risk relevant to the zero end‐point of the probability weighting function in Prospect Theory, and willingness‐to‐pay for flood insurance. In particular, we focus on explanatory variables of anticipatory and anticipated emotions, as well as the threshold of concern. Moreover, results obtained under real and hypothetical incentives are compared in an experiment with high experimental outcomes. Based on our findings, we suggest several policy recommendations to overcome individual decision processes, which may hinder flood protection efforts.
Low-lying densely populated areas can be susceptible to flooding due to extreme river discharges. Insurance may be used to spread flood risk and reduce potential material damages. However, homeowners often purchase insufficient amounts of insurance against natural hazard risks like flooding, which may be due to the way they process probabilities. A common finding from (Cumulative) Prospect Theory is that individuals overweight low probabilities and underweight moderate to high probabilities in making decisions under risk. However, very low probabilities typical of flood risks are either significantly over-weighted or neglected altogether. This study aims to examine factors related to flood insurance demand regarding emotions specific to risk, like immediate and anticipated emotions, the threshold level of concern as well as personality traits, like locus of control. In addition, we compare results under real experiment incentives to hypothetical ones with high loss outcomes. Based on data collected from 1041 homeowners in the Netherlands, we find that: an internal locus of control and anticipated regret about potentially uninsured flood losses is related to higher flood insurance demand. The use of the threshold of concern model is related to more probability under-weighting/less probability over-weighting when probabilities of flooding are low. Several policies are suggested to overcome psychological factors related to low demand for flood insurance to improve future flood preparations.
The U.S. 2020 hurricane season was extraordinary because of a record number of named storms coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study draws lessons on how individual hurricane preparedness is influenced by the additional risk stemming from a pandemic, which turns out to be a combination of perceptions of flood and pandemic risks that have opposite effects on preparedness behavior. We conducted a survey in early June 2020 of 600 respondents in flood-prone areas in Florida to obtain insights into households’ risk perceptions and preparedness for the upcoming hurricane season under COVID-19. The results show that concerns over COVID-19 dominated flood risk perceptions and negatively impacted people’s evacuation intentions. Whereas hotel costs were the main obstacle to evacuating during Hurricane Dorian in 2019 in the same geographic study area, the main evacuation obstacle identified in the 2020 hurricane season is COVID-19. Our statistical analyses investigating the factors influencing evacuation intentions show that older individuals are less likely to evacuate under a voluntary order, because they are more concerned about the consequences of becoming infected by COVID-19. We observe similar findings based on a real-time survey we conducted in Florida with another group of respondents under the threat of Hurricane Eta at the end of the hurricane season in November 2020. We discuss the implications of our findings for risk communication and emergency management policies that aim to improve hurricane preparedness when dealing with additional health risks such as a pandemic, a situation that may be exacerbated under the future climate.
This study adds to an emerging literature on the factors associated with individual perceptions of COVID-19 risks and decision-making processes related to prevention behaviors. We conducted a survey in the Netherlands (N = 3600) in June-July 2020 when the first peak of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths had passed, and lockdown measures had been eased. Dutch policies relied heavily on individual prevention behaviors to mitigate a second infection wave. We examine whether biases and heuristics that have been observed in how people perceive and respond to other risks also apply to the newly emergent risks posed by COVID-19. The results indicate that people simplify risk using threshold models and that risk perceptions are related with personal experiences with COVID-19 and experiences of close others, supporting the availability heuristic. We also observe that prevention behavior is more strongly associated with COVID-19 risk perceptions and feelings toward the risk than with local indicators of COVID-19 risks, and that prevention behavior is related with herding. Support for government lockdown measures is consistent with preferences that may contribute to the not-in-my-term-of-office bias. In addition, we offer insights into the role of trust, worry, and demographic characteristics in shaping perceptions of COVID-19 risks and how these factors relate with individual prevention behaviors and support for government prevention measures. We provide several lessons for the design of policies that limit COVID-19 risks, including risk communication strategies and appeals to social norms. Perhaps more importantly, our analysis allows for learning lessons to mitigate the risks of future pandemics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.