IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v80y2016i2p1243-1256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks

Author

Listed:
  • Toshio Fujimi
  • Masahide Watanabe
  • Ryuji Kakimoto
  • Hirokazu Tatano

Abstract

To create effective risk mitigation policies and improve risk communications, it is important to understand how individuals perceive ambiguity about certain risks. A significant number of studies have demonstrated that an individual’s behavior is sensitive to ambiguity. Therefore, this study explores how Japanese homeowners perceive ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks by focusing on two research questions: (1) To what degree do people perceive ambiguity? and (2) What are the factors that affect the degree of perceived ambiguity? We administered a survey to 1200 homeowners in Japan. Respondents were asked to state their subjective probabilities and ambiguities about earthquake and house destruction risks. Next, we examined the socioeconomic characteristics affecting their perceived ambiguities by applying a sample selection model. The findings reveal four aspects related to ambiguity. First, some homeowners perceived considerable ambiguity, while the majority observed small degrees of it. Second, on average, homeowners perceived less ambiguity about house destruction risk compared to earthquake risk. Third, socioeconomic characteristics and house attributes had an effect on the perception of ambiguity. Finally, from the perspective of creating policies that mitigate house destruction risks due to earthquakes, seismic diagnoses can help correct subjective risks and reduce the perceived ambiguity regarding them. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Ryuji Kakimoto & Hirokazu Tatano, 2016. "Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks," 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. 80(2), pages 1243-1256, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:80:y:2016:i:2:p:1243-1256
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-2021-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11069-015-2021-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-015-2021-2?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. Mary Riddel, 2009. "Risk Perception, Ambiguity, and Nuclear-Waste Transport," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 781-797, January.
    2. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    3. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1985. "Ambiguity and Insurance Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 386-390, May.
    4. Kunreuther, Howard & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Hogarth, Robin M. & Spranca, Mark, 1995. "Ambiguity and underwriter decision processes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 337-352, May.
    5. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    6. Cramer, J. S. & Hartog, J. & Jonker, N. & Van Praag, C. M., 2002. "Low risk aversion encourages the choice for entrepreneurship: an empirical test of a truism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 29-36, May.
    7. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1999. "Smoking Status and Public Responses to Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(2), pages 250-270, October.
    8. Joop Hartog & Ada Ferrer‐i‐Carbonell & Nicole Jonker, 2002. "Linking Measured Risk Aversion to Individual Characteristics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-26.
    9. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. "Risk, Ambiguity, and Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-35, April.
    10. Klein, William M. & Kunda, Ziva, 1994. "Exaggerated Self-Assessments and the Preference for Controllable Risks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 410-427, September.
    11. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00643580 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kunreuther, Howard & Hogarth, Robin & Meszaros, Jacqueline, 1993. "Insurer Ambiguity and Maarket Failure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 71-87, August.
    13. Trudy Cameron, 2005. "Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-97, January.
    14. Kivi, Paul A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2010. "Second-Order Ambiguity in Very Low Probability Risks: Food Safety Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2009. "Decision theory under uncertainty," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00429573, HAL.
    16. Riddel, Mary, 2011. "Uncertainty and measurement error in welfare models for risk changes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 341-354, May.
    17. Robert B. Barsky & F. Thomas Juster & Miles S. Kimball & Matthew D. Shapiro, 1997. "Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 537-579.
    18. Sıdıka Tekeli-Yeşil & Necati Dedeoğlu & Charlotte Braun-Fahrlaender & Marcel Tanner, 2011. "Earthquake awareness and perception of risk among the residents of Istanbul," 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. 59(1), pages 427-446, October.
    19. Mary Riddel & W. Shaw, 2006. "A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 131-150, March.
    20. Iuliana Armaş, 2008. "Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania," 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. 47(3), pages 397-410, December.
    21. W. Viscusi & Harrell Chesson, 1999. "Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 157-184, October.
    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. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Ryuji Kakimoto & Hirokazu Tatano, 2016. "Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks," 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. 80(2), pages 1243-1256, January.
    2. Toshio Fujimi & Hirokazu Tatano, 2013. "Promoting Seismic Retrofit Implementation Through “Nudge”: Using Warranty as a Driver," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1858-1883, October.
    3. Fumihiro Yamane & Kyohei Matsushita & Toshio Fujimi & Hideaki Ohgaki & Kota Asano, 2014. "A Simple Way to Elicit Subjective Ambiguity: Application to Low-dose Radiation Exposure in Fukushima," Discussion Papers 1417, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
    4. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.
    5. Fujii, Tomoki, 2017. "Dynamic Poverty Decomposition Analysis: An Application to the Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 69-84.
    6. Marielle Brunette & Laure Cabantous & Stéphane Couture & Anne Stenger, 2013. "The impact of governmental assistance on insurance demand under ambiguity: a theoretical model and an experimental test," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 153-174, August.
    7. Riddel, Mary, 2011. "Uncertainty and measurement error in welfare models for risk changes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 341-354, May.
    8. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1770-1784, November.
    9. Masahide Watanabe & Toshio Fujimi, 2015. "Evaluating Change in Objective Ambiguous Mortality Probability: Valuing Reduction in Ambiguity Size and Risk Level," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    11. Langlais, Eric, 2010. "Safety and the Allocation of Costs in Large Accidents," MPRA Paper 25710, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    13. Watanabe Masahide & Kawata Yukichika, 2017. "What Extent of Welfare Loss is Caused by the Disparity between Perceived and Scientific Risks? A Case Study of Food Irradiation," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Lahno, Amrei M., 2014. "Social anchor effects in decision-making under ambiguity," Discussion Papers in Economics 20960, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    15. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    16. Marco Rojas & Damián Vergara, 2021. "Ambiguity and long-run cooperation in strategic games," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 1077-1098.
    17. Diederik Aerts & Emmanuel Haven & Sandro Sozzo, 2018. "A proposal to extend expected utility in a quantum probabilistic framework," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(4), pages 1079-1109, June.
    18. Véronique Le Bihan & Sophie Pardo, 2010. "Les limites de la couverture des risques en aquaculture : le cas des conchyliculteurs en France," Working Papers hal-00527115, HAL.
    19. Ancarani, A. & Di Mauro, C. & D'Urso, D., 2013. "A human experiment on inventory decisions under supply uncertainty," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 61-73.
    20. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.

    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:80:y:2016:i:2:p:1243-1256. 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.