The determinants of households' flood mitigation decisions in France - on the possibility of feedback effects from past investments
Introduction
In 2014, floods accounted for more than a third of the total estimated damage caused by natural disasters worldwide, which amounted to 100 billion US dollar.1 Thus, they are already a major source of concern. In addition, the frequency and magnitude of extreme events such as floods are expected to be modified due to climate change (Patwardhan et al., 2007). As a result, adaptation to natural disasters, and in particular to floods, is one of the key challenges humans will have to face to build and maintain sustainable societies. France is very affected by floods, whose annual cost is over one billion Euros (OECD, 2014), and one in four inhabitants is exposed to this risk (DGPR, 2011).2 Yet so far, very few studies have investigated flood prevention measures in France (Poussin et al., 2014, Poussin et al., 2015).
The measures aimed at protecting people from flood risks or mitigating their negative consequences can be classified as public or private actions. Among public responses are zoning policies, solidarity and compensation schemes, and collective protection measures, like dykes or flood retention basins (Erdlenbruch et al., 2009, Picard, 2008). On the other hand, individuals themselves can take actions. In many countries, they can subscribe to private insurances aimed at compensating monetary losses after a natural disaster. In France, since there is a compulsory national compensation system (Catnat), individuals do not take the decision to buy an insurance or not, but they can decide to take precautionary measures aimed at mitigating the consequences of floods in their home, such as installing pumps or watertight doors and windows. This can be seen as an auto-insurance (Carson et al., 2013).
Several points can be raised to underline the paramount importance of private precautionary measures for the sustainability of socio-ecological systems. First, large structural flood defenses such as dams, storage reservoirs and embankments lack reversibility and can provide a misleading feeling of complete safety among populations exposed to floods (Kundzewicz, 1999). For this reason, they may hinder adaptation to changing risks of flooding. Moreover, they can harm ecosystems (Werritty, 2006). Conversely, since private precautionary measures are more local and can be designed for the specific situation and exposure of a household, they may be more flexible and have less impact on the environment than public flood defenses. Moreover, by implementing precautionary measures, individuals take responsibility for their own safety. Hence, the use of such measures can help maintain a certain awareness of the risk of flooding among exposed populations. Finally, several studies suggest that individual precautionary measures have great potential to reduce the consequences of natural disasters. For instance, Poussin et al. (2015) showed that elevating buildings could reduce the ratio of total damage to total building values by 48% in three different areas in France. Similar results have been obtained in Germany (Kreibich et al., 2005) and in the Netherlands (Botzen et al., 2009).
This paper recognizes the importance of private initiatives and investigates the mechanisms at stake when people decide whether to take precautionary measures or not. We combine economic approaches, stressing the importance of individual decision making in investing in self-insurance for their properties (Carson et al., 2013) and psychological approaches, highlighting the importance of perceptions and emotions to explain people's motivations to take actions in order to reduce their risk vulnerability (Rogers, 1975).
Several studies on individual flood preparedness have identified the Protection Motivation Theory as a relevant framework to explain the implementation of precautionary measures (Grothmann and Reusswig, 2006, Poussin et al., 2014, Reynaud et al., 2013). However, in spite of the overall adequacy of this framework, and as highlighted by Bubeck et al. (2012), most studies are cross-sectional and may thus neglect possible feedback effects from already adopted precautionary measures on explanatory factors.
This article thus has two main objectives: i) to test the relevance of the Protection Motivation Theory in France, and if necessary to expand its framework by including the effects of socio-demographic variables, and ii) to investigate whether past decisions have an impact on people's perceptions and intentions, and how these feedback effects in turn affect the robustness of the Protection Motivation Theory.
To examine these questions, we conducted a survey among households in flood prone areas in the South of France, that have been hit by major floods at different points in time during the last 20 years. We collected data on exposure, attitudes, risk perception, experience of floods, characteristics of housing, and socio-demographic features from 331 households. We explored possible feedback effects by asking the respondents not only to indicate which precautionary measures they took, but also which ones they considered implementing at the time of the survey. We used discrete choice decisions models (Train, 2009) to compare the adequacy of the Protection Motivation Theory to explain implemented and planned measures and compared the perceptions and emotions of people who had already taken measures with those of respondents who still considered taking actions in the future.
In line with the existing literature, we confirm the relevance of the Protection Motivation Theory to explain private flood mitigation. Our results highlight the importance of threat appraisal, threat experience appraisal and, to a lesser extent, coping appraisal. In addition, we provide evidence for a feedback effect of the implementation of precautionary measures on risk perceptions.
In Section 2, we explain the Protection Motivation Theory and its strengths and weaknesses. In Section 3, we present the survey designed to investigate the drivers of private flood mitigation and the data we collected and then explain how we statistically analysed this information. We present our results in Section 4 before discussing them in Section 5. Finally, in Section 6 we present our conclusion.
Section snippets
Literature on Protection Motivation Theory
The Protection Motivation Theory was first proposed by Rogers (1975) and applied in the health domain. It was further developed by Milne et al. (2000) and adapted to the context of floods by Grothmann and Reusswig (2006). According to this framework and as presented in Fig. 1, the higher an individual's appraisal of the threat of flooding, the more likely he/she will respond to this risk by adopting either non-protective responses, such as a fatalist position, or by taking precautionary
Sample
Fig. 2 shows the geographical location of the two departments surveyed: the Aude department and the Var department. Both departments are subject to flash floods. The Aude department was severely impacted by such a phenomenon in November 1999. Thirty-five people died and it caused an estimated loss of 771 million euros (Vinet, 2008). The Var department was hit by a major flash flood in June 2010 that killed 26 people. The estimated damage due to this disaster was between 1000 and 1500 million
Scope of the Protection Motivation Theory
Table 3 summarizes the results of three logistic regressions. Model 1 and Model 2A were estimated using the whole sample. Model 1 explains the implementation of at least one precautionary measure whereas Model 2A explains the willingness to take at least one measure. The two model specifications contain the Protection Motivation Theory variables presented above. The fit of Model 2A is much better than that of Model 1 (Nagelkerke R2 of 0.308 versus 0.106). Furthermore, only two variables, “ high
The Dynamics of Adaptation and the Protection Motivation Theory
Our results suggest that the Protection Motivation Theory explains the willingness to mitigate floods better than the fact precautionary measures had already been taken by the household. Two possible reasons for this finding were identified.
First, as shown in Fig. 1, there could be actual barriers which, according to the Protection Motivation Theory, prevent people from taking precautionary measures. Since we did not control for these actual barriers, their effect might be included in the error
Conclusion
The main findings of our study are summarized in Fig. 3. In particular, our results suggest that the Protection Motivation Theory is an appropriate framework to explain private flood mitigation in France and that there could be a feedback effect of past investments on threat appraisal. Taking this feedback effect into account could improve the assessment of the determinants of households' flood mitigation and thus guide the design of policies aimed at fostering private actions. For instance, it
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to our colleagues from Irstea who helped us at many stages of this work, especially to Frédéric Grelot, Pauline Brémond, Clara Therville and the members of the Retina project. We acknowledge financial support from the French Ministry of Research within the Retina project 13-MRES-RDT-2-CVS-023. We also thank EnovResearch for having carried out the face-to-face interviews.
References (36)
- et al.
Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance
Ecol. Econ.
(2009) - et al.
Detailed insights into the influence of flood-coping appraisals on mitigation behaviour
Glob. Environ. Chang.
(2013) - et al.
Risk-sharing policies in the context of the French flood prevention action programmes
J. Environ. Manag.
(2009) - et al.
Insurance, prevention or just wait and see? Public preferences for water management strategies in the context of climate change
Ecol. Econ.
(2010) - et al.
The effectiveness of flood risk communication strategies and the influence of social networks–insights from an agent-based model
Environ. Sci. Pol.
(2016) The determinants of private flood mitigation measures in Germany–evidence from a nationwide survey
Ecol. Econ.
(2015)- et al.
Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households
Environ. Sci. Pol.
(2014) - et al.
Effectiveness of flood damage mitigation measures: empirical evidence from French flood disasters
Global Environ. Change
(2015) Geographical analysis of damage due to flash floods in southern France: the cases of 12–13 November 1999 and 8–9 September 2002
Appl. Geogr.
(2008)- et al.
Assessing the benefits of organized voluntary emergency services-concepts and evidence from flood protection in austria
Disaster. Prev. Manag. Int. J.
(2016)
Do wealth fluctuations generate time-varying risk aversion? Micro-evidence on individuals' asset allocation (digest summary)
Am. Econ. Rev.
Quantitative Data Analysis for Social Scientists
A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior
Risk Anal.
Storm water management as a public good provision problem: survey to understand perspectives of low-impact development for urban storm water management practices under climate change
J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag.
Deciding whether to invest in mitigation measures: evidence from Florida
J. Risk Insur.
Individual investor risk aversion and investment portfolio composition
J. Financ.
Première évaluation national des risques d’inondation - principaux résultats
Le régime d’assurance des catastrophes naturelles en france métropolitaine entre 1995 et 2006
Cited by (51)
The impact of risk communication, trust, and coping appraisal on individual preparedness decisions in geological hazard-prone areas
2024, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionIdentification of motivating factors to help decision-making to minimise flood risk by applying private mitigation measures
2023, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionDetermining social-psychological drivers of Texas Gulf Coast homeowners’ intention to implement private green infrastructure practices
2023, Journal of Environmental PsychologyViability, efficiency, resilience and equity: Using very diverse indicators to deal with uncertainties of future events
2022, Environmental Science and PolicyCitation Excerpt :The numerous parameters of the dynamics are fixed. Their values have been determined based on a quantitative survey among 331 households conducted in 2015, following statistic and econometric analyses Richert et al. (2017), Erdlenbruch and Bonté (2018). Agents are hit by different flood heights according to their geographical situation in one of three areas around a river.
Role of hazard information in the adoption of seismic hazard adjustments: Information treatment experiment in Beijing
2022, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionSmallholder farmers’ willingness to pay for flood insurance as climate change adaptation strategy in northern Bangladesh
2022, Journal of Cleaner Production