Advertisement

Household Preferences for Managing Coastal Vulnerability: State vs. Federal Adaptation Fund

  • Tanvir PavelEmail author
  • Pallab Mozumder
Original Paper
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

People living in the coastal areas are highly vulnerable to the extreme weather events and climatic shocks. In this paper, we analyze households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for public adaptation funds to support proactive measures that would potentially minimize the extent of coastal vulnerability. Using split-sample dichotomous choice contingent valuation (CV) method, we investigate households’ preference for a state adaptation fund (SAF) versus a federal adaptation fund (FAF), lasting for either 5 or 10 years. We analyze more than 1200 randomly selected household responses from the counties of 10 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States that were adversely affected by a major hurricane (Sandy). From the annual estimates of median WTP, we observe that the households are willing to pay more for SAF ($68.37) than FAF ($27.35). The findings can provide inputs for policy evaluation to minimize coastal vulnerability, particularly to decide whether similar projects should be managed at the state or federal levels.

Keywords

State adaptation fund (SAF) Federal Adaptation Fund (FAF) Willingness to pay (WTP) Natural disasters Hurricane Sandy 

JEL Codes

Q51 Q54 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation (Award #0838683, #1204762, # 1832693), Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM), International Hurricane Research Center and Southeast Environmental Research Center at the Florida International University, Miami, Florida. Nadia Seeteram, Sandra Maina, Eric Van Vleet, Subrina Tahsin, Fan Jiang, Sisi Meng, Shishir Sarker, and Chiradip Chatterjee have provided excellent research support. We are also thankful to survey participants and GFK (formerly Knowledge Networks) staff members who implemented the survey. However, the opinions expressed here are solely of the authors.

References

  1. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Chang 93(3):335–354Google Scholar
  2. Adler JH (2007) When is two a crowd-the impact of Federal Action on state environmental regulation. Harv Envtl L Rev 31:67Google Scholar
  3. Babcock M (2013) State Hazard mitigation plans & climate change: rating the states. Center for Climate Change Law, New York, Columbia Law SchoolGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker EJ, Broad K, Czajkowski J, Meyer R, Orlov B (2012) Risk perceptions and preparedness among mid-Atlantic coastal residents in advance of hurricane sandy. University of Pennsylvannia, Philadelphia, PA, The Wharton SchoolGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbier EB (2014) A global strategy for protecting vulnerable coastal populations. Science 345(6202):1250–1251Google Scholar
  6. Bathi JR, Das HS (2016) Vulnerability of coastal communities from storm surge and flood disasters. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(2):239Google Scholar
  7. Benson, C., & Clay, E. J. (2003). Economic and financial impacts of natural disasters: an assessment of their effects and options for mitigation. Overseas Development InstituteGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards 7(1):20–31Google Scholar
  9. Blake, E. S., Kimberlain, T. B., Berg, R. J., Cangialosi, J. P., & Beven II, J. L. (2013). Tropical cyclone report: hurricane sandy. National Hurricane CenterGoogle Scholar
  10. Burkett V (2012) Coastal impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabilities. Island PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manag 15(3):355–379Google Scholar
  12. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):181–210Google Scholar
  13. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19(2):173–210Google Scholar
  14. Carson R, Groves T, List J, Machina M (2004) Probabilistic influence and supplemental benefits: a field test of the two key assumptions underlying stated preferences. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, Draft manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  15. Chatterjee C, Flugman E, Jiang F, Mozumder P, Chowdhury AG (2019) Insights from a stated preference experiment of Florida residents: the role of information and incentives in hurricane risk mitigation. Natural Hazards Review 20(1):04018029Google Scholar
  16. Creel MD, Loomis JB (1991) Confidence intervals for welfare measures with application to a problem of truncated counts. Rev Econ Stat 73(2):370–373Google Scholar
  17. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3):649–665Google Scholar
  18. Dash N, Gladwin H (2007) Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. Natural Hazards Review 8(3):69–77Google Scholar
  19. Davlasheridze M, Fisher-Vanden K, Klaiber HA (2017) The effects of adaptation measures on hurricane induced property losses: which FEMA investments have the highest returns? J Environ Econ Manag 81:93–114Google Scholar
  20. Ewing L, Flick RE, Synolakis CE (2010) A review of coastal community vulnerabilities toward resilience benefits from disaster reduction measures. Environmental Hazards 9(3):222–232Google Scholar
  21. Ge Y, Peacock WG, Lindell MK (2011) Florida households’ expected responses to hurricane hazard mitigation incentives. Risk Anal 31(10):1676–1691Google Scholar
  22. Godschalk DR (2003) Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review 4(3):136–143Google Scholar
  23. Goeschl T, Managi S (2019) Public in-kind relief and private self-insurance. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change 3(1):3–21Google Scholar
  24. Goodspeed, T. (2013). Decentralization and Natural Disasters. CESifo working paper no. 4179, Retrieved March 20, 2017 from www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71175/1/740136232.pdf
  25. Goulder LH, Stavins RN (2011) Challenges from state-federal interactions in US climate change policy. Am Econ Rev 101(3):253–257Google Scholar
  26. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  27. Hochrainer-Stigler S, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Mochizuki J (2019) Flood proofing low-income houses in India: an application of climate-sensitive probabilistic benefit-cost analysis. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change 3(1):23–38Google Scholar
  28. Hunt A (2016) Hurricane Sandy and her lasting environmental impacts. Environmental and Earth Law Journal (EELJ) 6:82–107Google Scholar
  29. Ivehammar P (2009) The payment vehicle used in CV studies of environmental goods does matter. J Agric Resour Econ 34(3):450–463Google Scholar
  30. Jeanty PW (2007) Constructing krinsky and robb confidence intervals for mean and median willingness to pay (wtp) using stata. Sixth North American Stata Users’ Group Meeting, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Kent R (2011) Disaster risk reduction and changing dimensions and dynamics of future crisis drivers. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Kievik M, Gutteling JM (2011) Yes, we can: motivate Dutch citizens to engage in self-protective behavior with regard to flood risks. Nat Hazards 59(3):1475–1490Google Scholar
  33. Koerth J, Vafeidis AT, Hinkel J (2017) Household-level coastal adaptation and its drivers: a systematic case study review. Risk Anal 37(4):629–646Google Scholar
  34. Kunreuther H, Pauly M (2006) Rules rather than discretion: lessons from hurricane Katrina. J Risk Uncertain 33(1–2):101–116Google Scholar
  35. Kunz M, Mühr B, Kunz-Plapp T, Daniell JE, Khazai B, Wenzel F, Fohringer J (2013) Investigation of superstorm Sandy 2012 in a multi-disciplinary approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(10):2579–2598Google Scholar
  36. Landry CE, Hindsley P, Bin O, Kruse JB, Whitehead JC, Wilson K (2011) Weathering the storm: measuring household willingness-to-pay for risk-reduction in Post-Katrina new Orleans. South Econ J 77(4):991–1013Google Scholar
  37. Letson D, Sutter DS, Lazo JK (2007) Economic value of hurricane forecasts: an overview and research needs. Natural Hazards Review 8(3):78–86Google Scholar
  38. Linnerooth-Bayer J, Mechler R, Hochrainer-Stigler S (2011) Insurance against losses from natural disasters in developing countries: evidence, gaps and the way forward. Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management 1(1):59–81Google Scholar
  39. Lopez-Feldman, A. (2012). Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata. MPRA paper no. 41018. Retrieved March 12, 2017 from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41018/2/MPRA_paper_41018.pdf
  40. Manuel J (2013) The long road to recovery: environmental health impacts of hurricane Sandy. Environ Health Perspect 121(5):152–159Google Scholar
  41. Mozumder P, Chowdhury AG, Vásquez WF, Flugman E (2014) Household preferences for a hurricane mitigation fund in Flor`ida. Natural Hazards Review 16(3):04014031Google Scholar
  42. Multihazard Mitigation Council (2005). Natural hazard mitigation saves: An independent study to assess the future savings from mitigation activities. National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Munro A, Managi S (2017) Going Back: radiation and intentions to return amongst households evacuated after the great Tohoku earthquake. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change 1(1):77–93Google Scholar
  44. Oates WE (2001) A reconsideration of environmental federalism. Resources for the Future discussion paper. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Park T, Loomis JB, Creel M (1991) Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ 67(1):64–73Google Scholar
  46. Paul SK, Routray JK (2011) Household response to cyclone and induced surge in coastal Bangladesh: coping strategies and explanatory variables. Nat Hazards 57(2):477–499Google Scholar
  47. Peacock WG, Brody SD, Highfield W (2005) Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners. Landsc Urban Plan 73(2):120–135Google Scholar
  48. Peters E, Slovic P (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear Power1. J Appl Soc Psychol 26(16):1427–1453Google Scholar
  49. Petrolia DR, Kim TG (2009) What are barrier islands worth? Estimates of willingness to pay for restoration. Mar Resour Econ 24(2):131–146Google Scholar
  50. Petrolia DR, Interis MG, Hwang J (2014) America’s wetland? A national survey of willingness to pay for restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. Mar Resour Econ 29(1):17–37Google Scholar
  51. Poussin JK, Botzen WW, Aerts JC (2014) Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households. Environ Sci Pol 40:69–77Google Scholar
  52. Revesz RL (2001) Federalism and environmental regulation: a public choice analysis. Harvard Law Review:553–641Google Scholar
  53. Riad JK, Norris FH (1998) Hurricane threat and evacuation intentions: an analysis of risk perception, preparedness, social influence, and resources. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, Disaster Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  54. Richert C, Erdlenbruch K, Figuières C (2017) The determinants of households' flood mitigation decisions in France-on the possibility of feedback effects from past investments. Ecol Econ 131:342–352Google Scholar
  55. Rosenzweig C, Solecki W (2014) Hurricane Sandy and adaptation pathways in New York: lessons from a first-responder city. Glob Environ Chang 28:395–408Google Scholar
  56. Ruth M, Coelho D, Karetnikov D (2007) The US economic impacts of climate change and the costs of inaction. Center for Integrative Environmental Research. University of Maryland, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  57. Shaw WD, Baker J (2010) Models of location choice and willingness to pay to avoid hurricane risks for hurricane Katrina evacuees. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 28(1):87–114Google Scholar
  58. Shobe WM, Burtraw D (2012) Rethinking environmental federalism in a warming world. Climate Change Economics 3(4):1250018Google Scholar
  59. Simmons KM, Willner J (2001) Hurricane mitigation: rational choice or market failure. Atl Econ J 29(4):470–470Google Scholar
  60. Slovic P, Weber EU (2002) Perception of risk posed by extreme events. Risk management strategies in an uncertain world. Palisades, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Sullivan D, Uccellini L (2013) Service assessment: hurricane/post-tropical cyclone Sandy, October 22–29, 2012. NOAA, National Weather Service, Maryland Retrieved March 17, 2017 from http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/pwsp/documents/Sandy13.pdf Google Scholar
  62. Terpstra T (2011) Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Anal 31(10):1658–1675Google Scholar
  63. Unterberger C (2018) How flood damages to public infrastructure affect municipal budget indicators. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change 2(1):5–20Google Scholar
  64. Vásquez WF, Mozumder P (2017) Willingness to pay for hurricane-resistant home improvement programs: a choice experiment in northeastern and mid-Atlantic United States. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change 1(3):263–276Google Scholar
  65. Vogel, D. J., Toffel, M. W., Post, D., & Uludere, N. (2012). Environmental federalism in the European Union and the United States. A handbook of globalization and environmental policy: National Government Interventions in a global arena. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 321–361Google Scholar
  66. Whitehead JC, Edwards B, Van Willigen M, Maiolo JR, Wilson K, Smith KT (2000) Heading for higher ground: factors affecting real and hypothetical hurricane evacuation behavior. Environmental Hazards 2(4):133–142Google Scholar
  67. Williams RC (2012) Growing state–federal conflicts in environmental policy: the role of market-based regulation. J Public Econ 96(11):1092–1099Google Scholar
  68. Young M, Cleary K, Ricker B, Taylor J, Vaziri P (2012) Promoting mitigation in existing building populations using risk assessment models. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 104-106:285–292Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of Earth and Environment and Department of EconomicsFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations