Assessing the value of intangible benefits of property level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures

Joseph, Rotimi; Proverbs, David; Lamond, Jessica

doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1905-5

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The survey response rate was 10.5%, which resulted in 885 returned questionnaires, which is in line with other surveys (e.g. Joseph et al 2015) regarding flood related topics. A comparison between official statistics of the sampled population and statistics of characteristics of our respondents shows that the sample is approximately representative of the French population as a whole (Poussin et al 2013).…”

Section: Survey and Data Descriptionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Impacts of Flooding and Flood Preparedness on Subjective Well-Being: A Monetisation of the Tangible and Intangible Impacts

Hudson

Botzen

Poussin³

et al. 2017

J Happiness Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flood disasters severely impact human subjective well-being (SWB). Nevertheless, few studies have examined the influence of flood events on individual well-being and how such impacts may be limited by flood protection measures. This study estimates the long term impacts on individual subjective well-being of flood experiences, individual subjective flood risk perceptions, and household flood preparedness decisions. These effects are monetised and placed in context through a comparison with impacts of other adverse events on well-being. We collected data from households in flood-prone areas in France. The results indicate that experiencing a flood has a large negative impact on subjective well-being that is incompletely attenuated over time. Moreover, individuals do not need to be directly affected by floods to suffer SWB losses since subjective well-being is lower for those who expect their flood risk to increase or who have seen a neighbour being flooded. Floodplain inhabitants who prepared for flooding by elevating their home have a higher subjective well-being. A monetisation of the aforementioned well-being impacts shows that a flood requires €150,000 in immediate compensation to attenuate SWB losses. The decomposition of the monetised impacts of flood experience into tangible losses and intangible effects on SWB shows that intangible effects are about twice as large as the tangible direct monetary flood losses. Investments in flood protection infrastructure may be under funded if the intangible SWB benefits of flood protection are not taken into account.

show abstract

Section: Survey and Data Descriptionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Impacts of Flooding and Flood Preparedness on Subjective Well-Being: A Monetisation of the Tangible and Intangible Impacts

Hudson

Botzen

Poussin³

et al. 2017

J Happiness Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bubeck and Thieken (2018) argue that intangible effects can last considerably longer than repairing or replacing damaged economic assets (see also Reiter et al, 2018;Thieken, Bessel, et al, 2016a). Additionally, there is a nascent field investigating the intangible benefits of individual-level adaptation strategies (Lamond et al, 2018) resulting from preventing negative psychological impacts or by providing a greater sense of security (Hudson, Botzen, et al, 2019a;Joseph, Proverbs, & Lamond, 2015). There is thus an emerging debate aiming at determining if adaptive measures can also lower the damage suffered during a flood as a proxy for the welfare loss prevented.…”

Section: Knowledge Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events

show abstract

“…Consequently, current policy strategies, documents and legal frameworks revolve around making citizens and economies more resilient against future events (Fuchs & Thaler, 2018;Laeni, van den Brink, & Arts, 2019;Meng, Dabrowski, Tai, Stead, & Chan, 2019;Spaans & Waterhout, 2017). Within integrated flood risk management the implementation of structural flood alleviation schemes (e.g., dikes) and nonstructural solutions (e.g., land use policy, early warning, property-level flood risk adaptation [PLFRA] measures) is emphasized (Green, 2017;Holub, Suda, & Fuchs, 2012;Joseph, Proverbs, & Lamond, 2015;Kreibich et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of property‐level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures: Choices and decisions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydrometeorological events are highly costly and have strong impacts on the human‐environment system. Effective response requires effective risk management concepts and strategies at individual and watershed level to increase community resilience. Focusing on flood risk and the information associated with it, individual risk behavior in the shape of implementing property‐level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures is often overlooked. For this research, a comprehensive overview of possible PLFRA measures for homeowners in flood risk areas was made, as well as the possible costs and technical feasibility for new and existing buildings. To complement this, insights into risk mitigation behavior are essential due to the ongoing shift to risk‐based and individualized flood risk management, which require a contribution from flood‐prone households to risk reduction. Results show that PLFRA measures differentiate in their effectiveness, cost‐efficiency and technical feasibility, and full protection can never be guaranteed. Considering risk mitigation behavior, literature generally distinguishes between situational factors (such as communication and economic subsidies) and personal factors (such as personal and psychological components influencing individual behavior). This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Science of Water > Water Extremes

show abstract

Assessing the value of intangible benefits of property level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

Impacts of Flooding and Flood Preparedness on Subjective Well-Being: A Monetisation of the Tangible and Intangible Impacts

Impacts of Flooding and Flood Preparedness on Subjective Well-Being: A Monetisation of the Tangible and Intangible Impacts

The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications

Implementation of property‐level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures: Choices and decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About