Social Acceptability of Flood Management Strategies under Climate Change Using Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)

Abstract

Floods are natural hazards with serious impact on many aspects of human life. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that climate change already has significant impact on magnitude and frequency of flood events worldwide. Thus, it is suggested to adopt strategies to manage damage impacts of climate change. For this, involving the local community in the decision-making process, as well as experts and decision-makers, is essential. We focused on assessing the social acceptability of flood management strategies under climate change through a socio-hydrological approach using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). For this purpose as well, hydro-climate modelling and the Analytical Network Process (ANP) were used. Among twelve investigated flood management strategies, "river restoration", "agricultural management and planning", and "watershed management" were the publicly most accepted strategies. Assessment of the social acceptability of these three strategies was carried out by use of the CVM and Willingness to Pay (WTP) methodology. Generally, 50%, 38%, and 18% were willing to pay and 44%, 48%, and 52% were willing to contribute flood management strategy in zones 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Overall, peoples' WTP for flood management strategies decreased with increasing distance from the river. Among different investigated dependent variables, household income had the highest influence on WTP.

Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Services to Ensure Sustainable Agricultural Income in the GAP-Harran Plain, Şanlıurfa, Turkey

“…As the level of income rose, there was an increased likelihood of individuals willing to pay more to sustain the same level of income [61]. In a study conducted in Iran, farmers' income was identified as the most important factor affecting WTP for sustainable agriculture and to reduce flood risk due to climate for a safe income [63]. In other studies, it was determined that income was an effective factor for WTP for sustainable agricultural environment and activities for sustainable income [24,25,33].…”

To which extent are socio-hydrology studies truly integrative? The case of natural hazards and disaster research

“…"Statistical analysis" and "Agent-based modelling" were used to process social systems data in 18.2 % and 15.9 % of the studies, respectively. Few studies applied more than one technique for processing social data (Horn and Elagib, 2018;Maghsood et al, 2019;Mondino et al, 2020a;Sapountzaki and Daskalakis, 2018), and only Sawada and Hanazaki (2020) applied two techniques (empirical numerical modelling and data assimilation) for both social and physical data. Among the "Other" techniques, for instance, Leong (2018) applied the quantitative Q methodology to study the subjectivities that explain how the social memory of floods results in different vulnerability or adaptive responses.…”

“…Studies that focus on the individual level are also popular as they enable the collection of specific behavioural information. Among the actors involved in these studies, it is important to highlight companies (Grames et al, 2019), government agents (Abebe et al, 2019), one person per household (Mondino et al, 2020a), local communities, stakeholders, and researchers (Maghsood et al, 2019). Few studies used political units as the spatial scale: "Municipal" (8.5 %), "Regional" (4.3 %), and "National" (8.5 %).…”

Sewerage infrastructure asset management based on a consumer-centric approach

“…For example, the half probability of flood risk is set to the hypothetical LoS in the case of Japan (Zhai et al, 2006 ), and the different flood probability scenarios depending on the flood control systems and insurance programs are suggested as the form of hypothetical LoS in the case of the Netherlands (Botzen and van den Bergh, 2012 ). There are some studies not mentioning the decrease of risk probability but focusing on the amount of residents’ WTP living in the floodplain with different levels of flood risk (Ghanbarpour et al, 2014 ; Maghsood et al, 2019 ; Netusil et al, 2021 ). Most of these studies used the frequency reduction or variety level of flooding probability as the hypothetical LoS.…”