IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/masfgc/v27y2022i1d10.1007_s11027-021-09982-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of flood-protective decision-making between German households and businesses

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Hudson

    (University of York
    University of Potsdam)

  • Philip Bubeck

    (University of Potsdam)

  • Annegret H. Thieken

    (University of Potsdam)

Abstract

Integrated flood risk management requires all stakeholders to limit flood impacts. Adaptation to flooding is a major avenue through which society designs our living spaces to cope with the threat of flooding. Within this context, there are many studies investigating the employment of property-level adaptation for households and the related decision-making process as both climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction measures. By comparison, businesses are a relatively neglected topic of study. This is a limitation, as businesses are important community members and suffer from a large share of flood losses, and their lack of preparedness undermines social resilience against climate change. Using survey data from the 2013 German flood, we compare the implementation of property-level adaptation measures by households and businesses. We further investigate whether similar factors drive adaptive behaviour using a structural statistical model of a hybrid of two socio-psychological models: the protection motivation theory (PMT) and the protective action decision model (PADM). Based on the empirical analysis of the combined framework, the main conclusion is that there is no great difference between the households and businesses in terms of their pre-disaster adaptation decision processes. However, companies did have a lower level of overall preparedness than households. This implies that results of decision-making from one stakeholder set may be applicable elsewhere, e.g., in developing agent-based models of disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation. However, most of the businesses studied were SMEs and may not be representative of larger businesses, where decision-making processes are increasingly formalized. This is important, since small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are often not well prepared against flooding or other climate change impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Hudson & Philip Bubeck & Annegret H. Thieken, 2022. "A comparison of flood-protective decision-making between German households and businesses," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1-22, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:27:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11027-021-09982-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11027-021-09982-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11027-021-09982-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11027-021-09982-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jfinan:v:43:y:1988:i:3:p:593-616 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Chloe H. Lucas & Kate I. Booth, 2020. "Privatizing climate adaptation: How insurance weakens solidaristic and collective disaster recovery," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    3. Philipp Babcicky & Sebastian Seebauer, 2017. "The two faces of social capital in private flood mitigation: opposing effects on risk perception, self-efficacy and coping capacity," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 1017-1037, August.
    4. Daniel R. Petrolia & Joonghyun Hwang & Craig E. Landry & Keith H. Coble, 2015. "Wind Insurance and Mitigation in the Coastal Zone," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 272-295.
    5. Torsten Grothmann & Fritz Reusswig, 2006. "People at Risk of Flooding: Why Some Residents Take Precautionary Action While Others Do Not," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 38(1), pages 101-120, May.
    6. Baker, G.P. & Jensen, M.C. & Murphy, K.J., 1988. "Compensation And Incentives: Practice Vs. Theory," Papers 88-05, Rochester, Business - Managerial Economics Research Center.
    7. Geaves, Linda H. & Penning-Rowsell, Edmund C., 2016. "Flood Risk Management as a public or a private good, and the implications for stakeholder engagement," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P2), pages 281-291.
    8. Robyn S. Wilson & Atar Herziger & Matthew Hamilton & Jeremy S. Brooks, 2020. "From incremental to transformative adaptation in individual responses to climate-exacerbated hazards," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(3), pages 200-208, March.
    9. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    10. Howard Kunreuther, 2015. "The Role of Insurance in Reducing Losses from Extreme Events: The Need for Public–Private Partnerships†," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 40(4), pages 741-762, October.
    11. Reiss, Peter C. & Wolak, Frank A., 2007. "Structural Econometric Modeling: Rationales and Examples from Industrial Organization," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 64, Elsevier.
    12. Moffitt, Robert & Schoeni, Robert F. & Brown, Charles & Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay & Couper, Mick P. & Diez-Roux, Ana V. & Hurst, Erik & Seltzer, Judith A., 2015. "Assessing the need for a new nationally representative household panel survey in the United States," Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, IOS Press, issue 1-4, pages 1-26.
    13. Anne M. van Valkengoed & Linda Steg, 2019. "Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 158-163, February.
    14. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Hudson & Annegret H. Thieken, 2022. "The presence of moral hazard regarding flood insurance and German private businesses," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(2), pages 1295-1319, June.
    2. Mol, Jantsje M. & Botzen, W.J. Wouter & Blasch, Julia E., 2020. "Behavioral motivations for self-insurance under different disaster risk insurance schemes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 967-991.
    3. Adloff, Susann, 2021. "Adapting to Climate Change: Threat Experience, Cognition and Protection Motivation," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242400, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Sebastian Seebauer & Philipp Babcicky, 2020. "The Sources of Belief in Personal Capability: Antecedents of Self‐Efficacy in Private Adaptation to Flood Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1967-1982, October.
    5. Matthew Billman & Kayode Atoba & Courtney Thompson & Samuel Brody, 2023. "How about Now? Changes in Risk Perception before and after Hurricane Irma," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Welsch, David M. & Winden, Matthew W. & Zimmer, David M., 2022. "The effect of flood mitigation spending on flood damage: Accounting for dynamic feedback," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. Yilin Zou & Alexia Stock & Rachel Davidson & Linda Nozick & Joseph Trainor & Jamie Kruse, 2020. "Perceived attributes of hurricane-related retrofits and their effect on household adoption," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 201-224, October.
    8. Philip Bubeck & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jonas Laudan & Jeroen C.J.H. Aerts & Annegret H. Thieken, 2018. "Insights into Flood‐Coping Appraisals of Protection Motivation Theory: Empirical Evidence from Germany and France," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(6), pages 1239-1257, June.
    9. Sedighe Pakmehr & Masoud Yazdanpanah & Masoud Baradaran, 2021. "Explaining farmers’ response to climate change-induced water stress through cognitive theory of stress: an Iranian perspective," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5776-5793, April.
    10. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    11. Jana Lorena Werg & Torsten Grothmann & Michael Spies & Harald A. Mieg, 2020. "Factors for Self-Protective Behavior against Extreme Weather Events in the Philippines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, July.
    12. Md Omar Faruk & Keshav Lall Maharjan, 2023. "The Determinants of Farmers’ Perceived Flood Risk and Their Flood Adaptation Assessments: A Study in a Char-Land Area of Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    14. Hilary Byerly Flint & Paul Cada & Patricia A. Champ & Jamie Gomez & Danny Margoles & James R. Meldrum & Hannah Brenkert-Smith, 2022. "You vs. us: framing adaptation behavior in terms of private or social benefits," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Gil-Clavel, Sofia & Wagenblast, Thorid & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Farmers’ Incremental and Transformational Climate Change Adaptation in Different Regions: A Natural Language Processing Comparative Literature Review," SocArXiv 3dp5e, Center for Open Science.
    17. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Howard Kunreuther & Jeffrey Czajkowski & Hans de Moel, 2019. "Adoption of Individual Flood Damage Mitigation Measures in New York City: An Extension of Protection Motivation Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2143-2159, October.
    18. Joop de Boer & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Teun Terpstra, 2014. "Improving Flood Risk Communication by Focusing on Prevention‐Focused Motivation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 309-322, February.
    19. Victor Champonnois & Katrin Erdlenbruch, 2020. "Willingness of households to reduce flood risk in southern France," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02586069, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    20. Osberghaus, Daniel, 2015. "The determinants of private flood mitigation measures in Germany — Evidence from a nationwide survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 36-50.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:27:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11027-021-09982-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.