Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 603–617 | Cite as

Valuing Flood Risk Reductions



A choice experiment is used to estimate how Vietnamese households value a flood risk reduction. The empirical analysis is conducted on a sample of households located in the Nghe An Province, one of the provinces which is the most affected by floods in Vietnam. The results reveal that there is a high level of heterogeneity in preferences across households. We compute the willingness to pay (WTP) for a flood risk reduction, and we identify how it relates to different attributes of flood management policies (reduction of economic losses, reduction of human losses, political level in charge of implementing the flood management policy). In particular, the marginal WTP for reducing the flood fatality rate, which can be interpreted as the value of statistical life (VSL), varies from 2 517 million VND (approximately 120,818 USD) to 3 590 million VND (approximately 172,323 USD) depending on the model considered. The VSL represents between 77 and 111 times the annual household average income in our sample, a result in line with previous estimates in similar countries.


Choice experiment Environmental valuation Flood risk Value of statistical life Vietnam 



The authors would like to thank Mr. Nhung Nguyen from the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for his patience when explaining the organization of flood protection in Vietnam and in the Nghe An Province. We thank Thanh Duy Nguyen for his very efficient assistance during the field work and we are also grateful to Christoph Rheinberger and Henrik Andersson for very useful comments on a preliminary version of the choice experiment survey. This paper has also benefitted from very useful comments at the Cost-Benefit Analysis workshop of the Toulouse School of Economics (TSE) and at the fifth Vietnam Economist Annual Meeting (VEAM) in Hanoi. The usual disclaimer applies. Financial support from the Nghe An province in Vietnam is recognized as part of the VIETFLOOD project.

Supplementary material

10666_2016_9500_MOESM1_ESM.docx (729 kb)
(DOCX 729 KB)


  1. 1.
    Bin, O., & Polasky, S. (2004). Effects of flood hazards on property values: evidence before and after hurricane Floyd. Land Economics, 80(4), 490–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Botzen, W.J.W., Aerts, J.C.J.H., & Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2013). Individual preferences for reducing flood risk to near zero through elevation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(2), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botzen, W.J.W., Aerts, J.C.J.H., & van den Bergh, J. C.J.M. (2009). Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance. Ecological Economics, 68(8–9), 2265–2277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Botzen, W.J.W., & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2012). Monetary valuation of insurance against climate change risk. International Economic Review, 53(3), 1005–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brouwer, R., & Akter, S. (2010). Informing micro insurance contract design to mitigate climate change catastrophe risks using choice experiments. Environmental Hazards, 9(1), 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brouwer, R., Akter, S., Brander, L., & Haque, E. (2009). Economic valuation of flood risk exposure and reduction in a severely flood prone developing country. Environment and Development Economics, 14(03), 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brouwer, R., Tinh, B.D., Tuan, T.H., Magnussen, K., & Navrud, S. (2014). Modeling demand for catastrophic flood risk insurance in coastal zones in Vietnam using choice experiments. Environment and Development Economics, 19, 228–249. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bubeck, P., Botzen, W.J.W., & Aerts, J.C.J.H. (2012). A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Analysis, 32(9), 1481–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cameron, M., Gibson, J., Helmers, K., Lim, S., Tressler, J., & Vaddanak, K. (2010). The value of statistical life and cost-benefit evaluations of landmine clearance in Cambodia. Environment and Development Economics, 15, 395–416. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daniel, V.E., Florax, R.J.G.M., & Rietveld, P. (2009). Flooding risk and housing values: an economic assessment of environmental hazard. Ecological Economics, 69(2), 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eckel, C.C., El-Gamal, M.A., & Wilson, R.K. (2009). Risk loving after the storm: a bayesian-network study of hurricane Katrina evacuees. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(2), 110–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fuks, M., & Chatterjee, L. (2008). Estimating the willingness to pay for a flood control project in Brazil using the contingent valuation method. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 134(1), 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenstone, M., & Jack, B.K. (2015). Envirodevonomics: a research agenda for an emerging field. Journal of Economic Literature, 53(1), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grothmann, T., & Reusswig, F. (2006). People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural Hazards, 38, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jha, A.K., Bloch, R., & Lamond, J. (2010). Cities and flooding. A guide to integrated urban flood risk management for the 21st century. A summary for policy makers. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kousky, C. (2010). Learning from extreme events: risk perceptions after the flood. Land Economics, 86(3), 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krinsky, I., & Robb, A.L. (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(4), 715–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kundzewicz, Z.W., & Stakhiv, E.Z. (2010). Are climate models “ready for prime time” in water resources management applications, or is more research needed? Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(7), 1085–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michel-Kerjan, E.O., & Kousky, C. (2010). Come rain or shine: evidence on flood insurance purchases in Florida. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 77(2), 369–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Navrud, S., Tuan, T.H., & Tinh, B.D. (2012). Estimating the welfare loss to households from natural disasters in developing countries: a contingent valuation study of flooding in Vietnam. Global Health Action, 5, 17609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norris, F.H., & Murrell, S.A. (1988). Prior experience as a moderator of disaster impact on anxiety symptoms in older adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 665–683. doi: 10.1007/BF00930020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ohno, E., Morisugi, M., Kyophilavong, P., & Sao, H. (2012). Measurement of value of statistical life by evaluating diarrhea mortality risk due to water pollution in Laos and Vietnam. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Urban Science, Meijo University, Japan.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petrolia, D.R., Landry, C.E., & Coble, K.H. (2013). Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and flood insurance. Land Economics, 89(2), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pilarczyk, K.W., & Nuoi, N.S. (2005). Experience and practices on flood control in Vietnam. Water International, 30(1), 114– 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Revelt, D., & Train, K. (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choice of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reynaud, A., & Nguyen, M.-H. (2013). Monetary valuation of a flood insurance in Vietnam. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rijkswaterstaat (2006). Lessons learned from flood defence in the Netherlands. Irrigation and Drainage, 55 (S1), S121–S132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salanié, F., & Treich, N. (2009). Regulation in happyville. The Economic Journal, 119(537), 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Train, K.E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vassanadumrongdee, S., & Matsuoka, S. (2005). Risk perceptions and value of a statistical life for air pollution and traffic accidents: evidence from Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30, 261–287. doi: 10.1007/s11166-005-1155-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whittington, D. (2010). What have we learned from 20 years of stated preference research in less-developed countries? Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2(1), 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    WorldBank (2005). Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. Disaster risk management series No. 5, Hazard Management Unit, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    WorldBank (2010). Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters. The economics of effective prevention. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    WorldBank (2010). Weathering the storm: options for disaster risk financing in Vietnam. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhai, G., Fukuzono, T., & Ikeda, S. (2007). Multi-attribute evaluation of flood management in Japan: a choice experiment approach. Water and Environment Journal, 21(4), 265– 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhai, G., Sato, T., Fukuzono, T., Ikeda, S., & Yoshida, K. (2006). Willingness to pay for flood risk reduction and its determinant in Japan. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42(4), 927–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhai, G., & Suzuki, T. (2008). Effects of risk representation and scope on willingness to pay for reduced risks: evidence from Tokyo bay, Japan. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Toulouse School of Economics (INRA)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations