Insurance, prevention or just wait and see? Public preferences for water management strategies in the context of climate change
Policies in the context of global change involve a high degree of uncertainty, as knowledge about future changes and the effectiveness of potential measures is insufficient. Our study set out to investigate how members of the public evaluate policy options that aim at adaptation to climate change, and more specifically, to reduce the risk from flooding and low flows. We explored how hierarchically structured networks of values and beliefs shape public preferences and attitudes towards two different policies, insurance and a sustainable flood management scheme. In particular, we assessed the role of governance-related values such as efficiency, solidarity and sustainability that allow individuals to evaluate a policy option even if its outcomes are highly uncertain. To this end, we conducted a survey among members of the Scottish public (nÂ =Â 1033). Findings from spike models and structural equation modelling suggested that there was general support for both policy measures, with a preference for the sustainable flood management approach. In particular, we found perceived severity of change, trust in government, governance-related values and fundamental values to inform attitudes and willingness to pay (WTP) for policy measures. More specific constructs, such as attitudes, were embedded in contexts of more abstract and situation-transcendent values.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Daniel Burghart & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2007. "Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: Risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 77-105, August.
- Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
- Togridou, Anatoli & Hovardas, Tasos & Pantis, John D., 2006. "Determinants of visitors' willingness to pay for the National Marine Park of Zakynthos, Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 308-319, November.
- Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009.
"Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences,"
Working Papers in Economics
370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Qin, Ping & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jinato, 2008. "Forestland Reform in China: What Do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment in Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Discussion Papers dp-08-35-rev-efd, Resources For the Future.
- Attari, Shahzeen Z. & Schoen, Mary & Davidson, Cliff I. & DeKay, Michael L. & Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & Dawes, Robyn & Small, Mitchell J., 2009. "Preferences for change: Do individuals prefer voluntary actions, soft regulations, or hard regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1701-1710, April.
- John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban, 1999.
"Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 453-465.
- John C. Whitehead & Thomas J. Hoban, . "Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand," Working Papers 9613, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
- Hidano, Noboru & Kato, Takaaki & Aritomi, Masakazu, 2005. "Benefits of participating in contingent valuation mail surveys and their effects on respondent behavior: a panel analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 63-80, January.
- Botzen, W.J.W. & Aerts, J.C.J.H. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2009. "Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2265-2277, June.
- Torsten Grothmann & Fritz Reusswig, 2006. "People at Risk of Flooding: Why Some Residents Take Precautionary Action While Others Do Not," 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. 38(1), pages 101-120, 05.
- Neil A. Powe & Ian J. Bateman, 2004. "Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(2), pages 258-271.
- Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2002. "A note about model selection and tests for non-nested contingent valuation models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 363-370, February.
- Nele Lienhoop & Anke Fischer, 2009. "Can you be bothered? The role of participant motivation in the valuation of species conservation measures," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(4), pages 519-534.
- Hu, Wuyang, 2006. "Use of Spike Models in Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Oil," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(03), December.
- Terza, Joseph V., 1987. "Estimating linear models with ordinal qualitative regressors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-291, March.
- M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
- Judith Covey & Graham Loomes & Ian J. Bateman, 2007. "Valuing risk reductions: Testing for range biases in payment card and random card sorting methods," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 467-482.
- Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
- Bengt Kriström, 1997. "Spike Models in Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1013-1023.
- Kenyon, Wendy, 2007. "Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: A participant-led multi-criteria approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 70-81, October.
- Hu, Wuyang, 2006. "Use of Spike Models in Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Oil," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(03), pages 525-538, December.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
- Seung-Hoon Yoo & Seung-Jun Kwak, 2002. "Using a spike model to deal with zero response data from double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(14), pages 929-932.
- María Vázquez Rodríguez & Carmelo León, 2004. "Altruism and the Economic Values of Environmental and Social Policies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(2), pages 233-249, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:11:p:2279-2291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.