IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i3p683-694.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Flood Risk Acceptability and Economic Value of Evacuation

Author

Listed:
  • Guofang Zhai
  • Saburo Ikeda

Abstract

The economic value of evacuation and its relationship with flood risk acceptability in Japan were studied by applying the contingent valuation method (CVM). Flood risk acceptability here refers to the extent to which people accept the occurrence of floods, in terms of scale and frequency. The economic value of evacuation refers to people's willingness to pay (WTP) for avoiding evacuation inconvenience because of its inconvenience and the potential for certain losses as a result of evacuation. Our main finding was that over half of the people (56%) who actually evacuated in a real flood situation reported inconvenience. The greatest inconveniences were the shortages of information and food. Evacuation inconvenience can be regarded as an important factor causing the low rate of evacuation in Japan. The WTP for avoiding current inconvenience was approximately half of the estimated economic value of evacuation, implying that the current budget for evacuation is too small and should be increased to improve the conditions of evacuation sites. The economic value of evacuation can be taken into consideration in the risk assessment process in order to evaluate the efficiency of risk reduction measures. Flood risk acceptability and home ownership are two major statistically significantly determinants of the WTP. Considering that those who accept flood risk have a lower WTP for flood risk control (ex ante measures) than those who reject it, it is reasonable to think that there may be a tradeoff between the public WTPs for ex ante or ex post measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Guofang Zhai & Saburo Ikeda, 2006. "Flood Risk Acceptability and Economic Value of Evacuation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 683-694, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:683-694
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00771.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00771.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00771.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonard Shabman & Kurt Stephenson, 1996. "Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 433-449.
    2. Guofang Zhai & Teruki Fukuzono & Saburo Ikeda, 2003. "An Empirical Model of Efficiency Analysis on Flood Prevention Investment in Japan," Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 238-254, November.
    3. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    4. William H. Desvousges & F. R. Johnson & H. S. Banzhaf, 1998. "Environmental Policy Analysis With Limited Information," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1328.
    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. Rebecca R. Thompson & Dana Rose Garfin & Roxane Cohen Silver, 2017. "Evacuation from Natural Disasters: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 812-839, April.
    2. Guofang Zhai & Takeshi Suzuki, 2008. "Effects of Risk Representation and Scope on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risks: Evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 513-522, April.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2008. "Natural Hazards and Motivation for Mitigation Behavior: People Cannot Predict the Affect Evoked by a Severe Flood," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 771-778, June.
    4. Ming Wang & Chuan Liao & Saini Yang & Weiting Zhao & Min Liu & Peijun Shi, 2012. "Are People Willing to Buy Natural Disaster Insurance in China? Risk Awareness, Insurance Acceptance, and Willingness to Pay," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1717-1740, October.
    5. Wim Kellens & Teun Terpstra & Philippe De Maeyer, 2013. "Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 24-49, January.
    6. Sammy Zahran & Daniele Tavani & Stephan Weiler, 2013. "Daily Variation in Natural Disaster Casualties: Information Flows, Safety, and Opportunity Costs in Tornado Versus Hurricane Strikes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1265-1280, July.

    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. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    2. Brouwer, Roy & Bateman, Ian J., 2005. "Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 591-611, May.
    3. Van Lantz & Ryan Trenholm & Jeff Wilson & William Richards, 2012. "Assessing market and non-market costs of freshwater flooding due to climate change in the community of Fredericton, Eastern Canada," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 347-372, January.
    4. Henrik Lindhjem & Tran Tuan, 2012. "Valuation of species and nature conservation in Asia and Oceania: a meta-analysis," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Guofang Zhai & Takeshi Suzuki, 2008. "Effects of Risk Representation and Scope on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risks: Evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 513-522, April.
    6. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    7. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    8. Björn Vollan & Karla Henning & Deniza Staewa, 2017. "Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 500-518, October.
    9. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    10. Jose M. Martínez-Paz & Angel Perni & Federico Martínez-Carrasco, 2013. "Assessment of the Programme of Measures for Coastal Lagoon Environmental Restoration Using Cost--Benefit Analysis," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 131-148, February.
    11. Carol Vargas & Ramón Rosales, 2006. "Valoración Económica De La Prevención Pública De La Malaria En Los Hogares Del Caquetá," Documentos CEDE 3749, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    12. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    13. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2014. "Valuing environmental quality in actual travel time savings – The Haningeleden road project in Stockholm," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 349-356.
    14. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Tyurina, Elena & Nagapetyan, Artur, 2022. "The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    15. Magdalena Joanna Hędrzak & Elżbieta Badach & Sławomir Adam Kornaś, 2021. "Preliminary Assumptions for Identification of the Common Hamster ( Cricetus cricetus ) as a Service Provider in the Agricultural Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    16. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    17. Shokhrukh-Mirzo Jalilov, 2017. "Value of Clean Water Resources: Estimating the Water Quality Improvement in Metro Manila, Philippines," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.
    18. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    19. Allan Beltrán & David Maddison & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Benefits of Flood Defenses: A Repeat‐Sales Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2340-2367, November.
    20. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.

    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:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:683-694. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.