IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v107y2021i1d10.1007_s11069-021-04618-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the acceptable risk preferences of debris-flow disasters for three-category populations and their demographic characteristics in China

Author

Listed:
  • Xilin Liu

    (Sun Yat-Sen University)

  • Cheng Miao

    (Sun Yat-Sen University)

Abstract

Debris flows are abrupt geological hazards frequently resulting in destructive disasters in mountain areas. Thus, analysis of the acceptable risk of debris-flow disasters should be attentively considered, whereas the crucial problem of the acceptable disaster risk is how to know what the risk levels of debris-flow disasters are acceptable for the public. Thence, the questionnaire investigation of the acceptable risk preferences for different populations in various regions can be such a solution. The acceptable disaster risks are not only taking into account people's acceptance, but also related to government's disaster-reduction strategy and also referred to expert’s professional evaluation. Therefore, the establishment of guidelines and criterions for the acceptable risks of debris-flow disasters need all participations from multiple populations and different regions. In this survey, three-category populations including ordinary people, experts/scholars and administrators across China joined the questionnaire investigation. Five indicators (disaster-affected toll, death toll, death rate, personal direct economic loss, and total direct economic loss) were used to describe the acceptable risks of debris-flow disasters. Incorporated with frequency analysis, this work has explained the demographic characteristics for the acceptable risk preferences. The results indicate that ordinary people have relatively low acceptable risks, experts/scholars have slightly high acceptable risks and administrators have acceptable risks between both of them. Educational level, occupation, and income were the dominatingly demographic factors for the interpretations of the acceptable risk preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Xilin Liu & Cheng Miao, 2021. "Analysis of the acceptable risk preferences of debris-flow disasters for three-category populations and their demographic characteristics in China," 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. 107(1), pages 971-990, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:107:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-021-04618-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-021-04618-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-021-04618-8
    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/s11069-021-04618-8?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. John L. Dillon & Pasquale L. Scandizzo, 1978. "Risk Attitudes of Subsistence Farmers in Northeast Brazil: A Sampling Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 60(3), pages 425-435.
    2. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    3. Julie Barnett & Glynis M. Breakwell, 2001. "Risk Perception and Experience: Hazard Personality Profiles and Individual Differences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 171-178, February.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    5. Riyanti Djalante & Cameron Holley & Frank Thomalla & Michelle Carnegie, 2013. "Pathways for adaptive and integrated disaster resilience," 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. 69(3), pages 2105-2135, December.
    6. M. Winter & E. Bromhead, 2012. "Landslide risk: some issues that determine societal acceptance," 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. 62(2), pages 169-187, June.
    7. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    8. Aniello Amendola & Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer & Norio Okada & Peijun Shi, 2008. "Towards integrated disaster risk management: case studies and trends from Asia," 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. 44(2), pages 163-168, February.
    9. Daniela Di Bucci & Lucia Savadori, 2018. "Defining the acceptable level of risk for civil protection purposes: a behavioral perspective on the decision process," 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. 90(1), pages 293-324, January.
    10. Gary Charness & Catherine Eckel & Uri Gneezy & Agne Kajackaite, 2018. "Complexity in risk elicitation may affect the conclusions: A demonstration using gender differences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-17, February.
    11. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    12. Tao Ye & Ming Wang, 2013. "Exploring risk attitude by a comparative experimental approach and its implication to disaster insurance practice in China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 861-878, August.
    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. Friedman, Daniel & Habib, Sameh & James, Duncan & Williams, Brett, 2022. "Varieties of risk preference elicitation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 58-76.
    2. Annemie Maertens & A. V. Chari & David R. Just, 2014. "Why Farmers Sometimes Love Risks: Evidence from India," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 239-274.
    3. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2023. "Numeracy Skills, Decision Errors, and Risk Preference Estimation," CLTS Working Papers 5/23, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1290-1313 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Antoni Bosch & Joaquim Silvestre, 2003. "Do the Wealthy Risk More Money? An Experimental Comparison," Working Papers 10, Barcelona School of Economics.
    6. Akay, Alpaslan & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2009. "Attitudes toward Uncertainty among the Poor: Evidence from Rural Ethiopia," IZA Discussion Papers 4225, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Peilu Zhang & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Compulsory Versus Voluntary Insurance: An Online Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 106-125, January.
    8. Alpaslan Akay & Peter Martinsson & Haileselassie Medhin & Stefan Trautmann, 2012. "Attitudes toward uncertainty among the poor: an experiment in rural Ethiopia," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 453-464, September.
    9. Anwesha Bandyopadhyay & Lutfunnahar Begum & Philip J. Grossman, 2021. "Gender differences in the stability of risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 169-201, October.
    10. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    11. Kanchan Joshi & Thiagu Ranganathan & Ram Ranjan, 2021. "Exploring Higher Order Risk Preferences of Farmers in a Water-Scarce Region: Evidence from a Field Experiment in West Bengal, India," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(2), pages 317-344, June.
    12. Aklin, M. & Bayer, P. & Harish, S.P. & Urpelainen, J., 2018. "Economics of household technology adoption in developing countries: Evidence from solar technology adoption in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 35-46.
    13. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Jorrat, Diego & Orozco, Victor & Rascón-Ramírez, Ericka, 2021. "To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 1290-1313, September.
    14. Liu, Elaine M. & Huang, JiKun, 2013. "Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 202-215.
    15. Kibet, N. & Obare, G.A. & Lagat, J.K, 2018. "Risk attitude effects on Global-GAP certification decisions by smallholder French bean farmers in Kenya," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-29.
    16. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    17. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    18. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    19. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    20. Gatti, Nicolas & Cecil, Michael & Baylis, Kathy & Estes, Lyndon & Blekking, Jordan & Heckelei, Thomas & Vergopolan, Noemi & Evans, Tom, 2023. "Is closing the agricultural yield gap a “risky” endeavor?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    21. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.

    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:nathaz:v:107:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-021-04618-8. 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.