When confronted by catastrophic wildfire risk, homeowners simultaneously allocate resources between insurance and averting activities. Expected utility theory suggests that complete insurance coverage precludes investment in averting activities. However, when potential losses include a significant nonmarket component, optimal choice includes both. To investigate this issue, the authors analyze a unique combination of contingent valuation and experimental data. Both settings include a split-sample treatment to test the influence of wildfire risk zone information. The authors find that amenity values, subjective risk, averting efficacy perception, and demographic factors influence both willingness to pay and averting share and that risk information has the predicted ordering effect. (JEL "C9", "Q51", "Q54") Copyright 2006 Western Economic Association International.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)