Economic motivation of households to undertake private precautionary measures against floods

By Heidi Kreibich, S. Christenberger, Reimund Schwarze. 2011

130 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract. Flood damage is on the increase due to a combination of growing vulnerability and a changing climate. This trend can be mitigated only through significantly improved flood risk management which, alongside the efforts of public authorities, will include improvements in the mitigation measures adopted by private households. Economically "reasonable" efforts to self-insure and self-protect should be expected from households before the government steps in with publicly-funded relief programmes. To gain a deeper understanding of the benefits of households' precautionary measures, telephone interviews with private home owners were conducted in the Elbe and Danube catchments in Germany after the floods of 2002 and again after the floods in 2005 and 2006. Only detached, solid single-family houses were included in this study, which is based on 759 interviews. In addition, market-based cost assessments were solicited based on a "model building". Expert interviews and a literature review – including catalogues and price lists for building materials and household appliances – were used as back-up information for the cost assessments. The comparison of costs and benefits shows that large investments, such as building a sealed cellar, are only economically efficient if the building is flooded very frequently, that is, if it is located in a high flood risk area. In such areas it would be preferable in economic terms not to build a new house at all – or else to build a house without a cellar. Small investments, however, such as oil tank protection, can prevent serious damage at low cost. Such investments are still profitable even if the building is flooded every 50 years or less on average. It could be argued that these low-cost measures should be made mandatory through the enforcement of building codes. Financial incentives built into insurance contracts coupled with limits set on governmental relief programmes would provide an economic motivation for people to invest in precautionary measures.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Sociology and Political Science, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d74def66c04ff59f4b2999d76eb13c486a544d61

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Sociology and Political Science

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

The safe development paradox: An agent-based model for flood risk under climate change in the European Union (2020, background): “While such measures are often economically rational to take (Aerts et al., 2014; Kreibich et al., 2011; Poussin et al., 2015), people are generally not inclined to implement them.”
A Review of Cost Estimates for Flood Adaptation (2018, methodology): “The cost of flood‐proofing a 1500‐L oil tank against buoyancy, buried in the garden, is estimated at $1550 [27].”
The Determinants of Private Flood Mitigation Measures in Germany – Evidence from a Nationwide Survey (2015, background): “Empirical analyses from areas which have been flooded in the past have shown that mitigation can indeed effectively reduce economic flood damage considerably and is cost-efficient in many cases (Kreibich, Christenberger, and Schwarze 2011; Kreibich and Thieken 2008).”
The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications (2020, unknown): “…[Kreibich, Christenberger, & Schwarze, 2011]) or flood adapted uses of a home (Hudson et al., 2014) are particularly efficient by this standard (see: Holub & Fuchs, 2008; Hudson et al., 2014; Kreibich et al., 2011; Lamond, Rose, Bhattacharya-Mis, & Joseph, 2018; Poussin, Botzen, & Aerts, 2015).”
Review article: assessing the costs of natural hazards - state of the art and knowledge gaps (2013, background): “…(see Fuchs et al., 2007a; Pfurtscheller and Schwarze, 2010; Stoffel, 2005; Kind, 2013; Kreibich et al., 2011; European Commission, 2008; Von Ungern-Sternberg, 2004; Schwarze et al., 2011) or income loss due to the disruption of economic activity (Rogers and Tsirkunov, 2010) (see Table 5).”