IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v12y2009i1p59-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees

Author

Listed:
  • Justin Baker
  • W. Douglass Shaw
  • Mary Riddel
  • Richard T. Woodward

Abstract

Using a quasi-field experiment, we report on subjects' perceptions of the risks of hurricanes. All experimental subjects were displaced by either Hurricane Katrina or Rita, in New Orleans and other Gulf Coast areas, except for a small control group consisting of people who live in central Texas. We examine their perceptions of risks just after the hurricanes occurred, and over one year later to evaluate the change in subjective risk perceptions over time. A latent risk model is estimated in which subjective probabilities of hurricane strike risk are represented as a function of respondents' demographic characteristics and experiences following the storms.

Suggested Citation

  • Justin Baker & W. Douglass Shaw & Mary Riddel & Richard T. Woodward, 2009. "Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 59-74, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:12:y:2009:i:1:p:59-74
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870802452798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870802452798
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870802452798?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. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Michael D. Hurd & Kathleen McGarry, 1995. "Evaluation of the Subjective Probabilities of Survival in the Health and Retirement Study," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30, pages 268-292.
    3. Dickie, Mark & Gerking, Shelby, 2007. "Altruism and environmental risks to health of parents and their children," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 323-341, May.
    4. Donna M. Dosman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Steve E. Hrudey, 2001. "Socioeconomic Determinants of Health‐ and Food Safety‐Related Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 307-318, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    7. Gene Rowe & George Wright, 2001. "Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 341-356, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Kevin M. Simmons & Jamie Brown Kruse & Douglas A. Smith, 2002. "Valuing Mitigation: Real Estate Market Response to Hurricane Loss Reduction Measures," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(3), pages 660-671, January.
    10. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    11. Viscusi, W Kip & Magat, Wesley A, 1992. "Bayesian Decisions with Ambiguous Belief Aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 371-387, October.
    12. Jared Carbone & Daniel Hallstrom & V. Smith, 2006. "Can Natural Experiments Measure Behavioral Responses to Environmental Risks?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 273-297, March.
    13. 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.
    14. John Whitehead, 2005. "Environmental Risk and Averting Behavior: Predictive Validity of Jointly Estimated Revealed and Stated Behavior Data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(3), pages 301-316, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thierry Kalisa & Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2016. "Willingness to pay to avoid arsenic-related risks: a special regressor approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 143-162, July.
    2. Patricia A Champ & Hannah Brenkert‐Smith, 2016. "Is Seeing Believing? Perceptions of Wildfire Risk Over Time," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 816-830, April.
    3. Simone Cerroni & Sandra Notaro & W. Douglass Shaw, 2011. "Do Monetary Incentives and Chained Questions Affect the Validity of Risk Estimates Elicited via the Exchangeability Method? An Experimental Investigation," Department of Economics Working Papers 1110, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    4. Craig Trumbo & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly Marlatt & Lori Peek & Bridget Morrissey, 2014. "An Assessment of Change in Risk Perception and Optimistic Bias for Hurricanes Among Gulf Coast Residents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1013-1024, June.
    5. John T. Brady, 2012. "Health risk perceptions across time in the USA," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 547-563, June.
    6. Craig W. Trumbo & Lori Peek & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly L. Marlatt & Eve Gruntfest & Brian D. McNoldy & Wayne H. Schubert, 2016. "A Cognitive‐Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2233-2246, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Melkonyan, Tigran A., 2011. "The Effect of Communicating Ambiguous Risk Information on Choice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Hippolyte d’Albis & Emmanuel Thibault, 2018. "Ambiguous life expectancy and the demand for annuities," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 303-319, October.
    4. Li, Zhengtao & Folmer, Henk & Xue, Jianhong, 2014. "To what extent does air pollution affect happiness? The case of the Jinchuan mining area, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 88-99.
    5. Mary Riddel, 2009. "Risk Perception, Ambiguity, and Nuclear‐Waste Transport," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 781-797, January.
    6. Lee Lillard & Robert J. Willis, 2001. "Cognition and Wealth: The Importance of Probabilistic Thinking," Working Papers wp007, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    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. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    9. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    10. Treich, Nicolas, 2010. "The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 15-26, January.
    11. Dickie, Mark & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Gerking, Shelby & Veronesi, Marcella, 2022. "Risk Perception, Learning, and Willingness to Pay to Reduce Heart Disease Risk," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 363-382, October.
    12. Michael Hoy & Richard Peter & Andreas Richter, 2014. "Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 111-133, April.
    13. Valenzuela-Stookey, Quitzé, 2023. "Subjective complexity under uncertainty," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 76-93.
    14. Thierry Kalisa & Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2016. "Willingness to pay to avoid arsenic-related risks: a special regressor approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 143-162, July.
    15. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2010. "Water Management, Risk, and Uncertainty: Things We Wish We Knew in the 21st Century," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 9(2), pages 1-15.
    16. 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.
    17. Ken Binmore & Lisa Stewart & Alex Voorhoeve, 2012. "How much ambiguity aversion?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 215-238, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Simona Fabrizi & Steffen Lippert & Addison Pan & Matthew Ryan, 2022. "A theory of unanimous jury voting with an ambiguous likelihood," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 399-425, October.
    20. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:12:y:2009:i:1:p:59-74. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.