IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205549.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Precautionary Intentions and Risk Perceptions: Empirical Evidence from the Victims of Typhoon Morakot

Author

Listed:
  • Chou, Wan-Jung
  • Huang, Yu-Chia
  • Chang, Ching-Cheng

Abstract

It has been widely considered that when faced with natural hazard risks in the future, people adopt precautionary measures in order to alleviate the impact of a hazardous event. This study used the data from the Household Survey of Post-Morakot Social Impact and Recovery-Wave 1 implemented in June, 2010 in Taiwan via face to face interview with the representatives of the households that were forced to relocate after the typhoon. The raw data contains 1658 observations, representing 1658 households. Based on a two-stage approach, we, in the first stage, investigate the determinants of three types of households’ risk perceptions for the future, respectively, with the following explanatory variables: one’s experience with disaster with damage incurred, one’s trust in the authorities as well as local communities regarding their capacity of emergency response, one’s socio-demographic backgrounds and one’s residential areas. In the second stage, we assess the power of previously investigated risk perceptions, as well as of other factors, in explaining households’ intention to adopt measures for preparedness, for mitigation and for recovery, respectively. Subject to the categorical characteristics of dependent variables, an ordered probit model was employed. Our estimation results confirm the association between precautionary behaviour taken before Morakot and households risk perceptions after typhoon Morakot. However, it is inconclusive regarding whether or not former actions could reduce risk perceptions in a later stage. A negative correlation between trust in the central government and perceived impact of property loss is observed which suggests that the central government’s emergency response takes effect on reducing the damage on property. In comparison, households with higher trust in local communities tend to have lower perceived likelihood of a typhoon disaster. The corresponding predicted values confirmed that majority of the sampled households have high or very high risk perceptions. Households’ socio-demographic background and the locations of their residency are related to risk perceptions, primarily perceived probability and impact on property. The extent to which one trusts the central government and local communities in their disaster response capacity explains his/her intention to take precautionary actions. These results imply that households’ trust in the central government indicates their dependency on the government and hence results in weaker intention to take self-protect actions. Furthermore, households who trust in local communities do not consider that it is the communities’ responsibility to take protection measures and being part of the communities, they recognise the necessity of precautionary actions at the community level. Furthermore, we found that excessive compensation is correlated with weaker intention to purchase property insurance but a similar effect is not observed with respect to the intention to take up insurance against personal accidents. This can be explained by the fact that the authorities offered to the households affected by typhoon Morakot a financial compensation package that had extensive coverage on flooded or damaged housing and this can disincentivize households to purchase property insurance. Finally, the results confirm that certain predictors have both direct and indirect effects on the intentions to take certain precautionary measures, when indirect effects are mediated by risk perceptions. These predictors include trust in the central government for preparedness and mitigation, trust in local communicates for preparedness, mitigation and recovery, age for preparedness measures, income and illiteracy for mitigation measures and ethnicity for recovery measures. Moreover, the direct and indirect effects in some cases can counteract with each other. Thus if risk communication is to be sought in order to promote households’ precautionary behaviour against typhoon hazards, not only the information about the possibility and potential impact associated with a hazard but also households’ attitudes and socio-demographic factors ought to be taken into account in the development of communication strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Chou, Wan-Jung & Huang, Yu-Chia & Chang, Ching-Cheng, 2015. "Precautionary Intentions and Risk Perceptions: Empirical Evidence from the Victims of Typhoon Morakot," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205549, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205549
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205549/files/AAEA%202015-Precautionary%20behaviour%200527-FInal.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205549?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. Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz & Piskorz, Zbigniew & Borkowska, Anna, 2002. "Fear or money? Decisions on insuring oneself against flood," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 221-233, December.
    2. Christopher D. Carroll & Karen E. Dynan & Spencer D. Krane, 2003. "Unemployment Risk and Precautionary Wealth: Evidence from Households' Balance Sheets," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(3), pages 586-604, August.
    3. 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, May.
    4. 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.
    5. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jeroen C. J. M. Van Den Bergh, 2012. "Monetary Valuation Of Insurance Against Flood Risk Under Climate Change," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(3), pages 1005-1026, August.
    6. Andrew Benito, 2002. "Does Job Insecurity Affect Household Consumption?," Working Papers 0225, Banco de España.
    7. Shuyeu Lin & Daigee Shaw & Ming-Chou Ho, 2008. "Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public?," 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. 44(2), pages 305-314, February.
    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. Ruth Dittrich & Anita Wreford & Adam Butler & Dominic Moran, 2016. "The impact of flood action groups on the uptake of flood management measures," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 471-489, October.
    2. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Howard Kunreuther & Jeffrey Czajkowski & Hans de Moel, 2019. "Adoption of Individual Flood Damage Mitigation Measures in New York City: An Extension of Protection Motivation Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2143-2159, October.
    3. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    4. Ling Tian & Peng Yao & Shi-jie Jiang, 2014. "Perception of earthquake risk: a study of the earthquake insurance pilot area in China," 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. 74(3), pages 1595-1611, December.
    5. Richert, Claire & Erdlenbruch, Katrin & Figuières, Charles, 2017. "The determinants of households' flood mitigation decisions in France - on the possibility of feedback effects from past investments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 342-352.
    6. 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.
    7. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    8. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    9. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    10. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    11. Tesselaar, Max & Botzen, W.J. Wouter & Robinson, Peter J. & Aerts, Jeroen C.J.H. & Zhou, Fujin, 2022. "Charity hazard and the flood insurance protection gap: An EU scale assessment under climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    12. Karina Landeros-Mugica & Javier Urbina-Soria & Irasema Alcántara-Ayala, 2016. "The good, the bad and the ugly: on the interactions among experience, exposure and commitment with reference to landslide risk perception in México," 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(3), pages 1515-1537, February.
    13. Andor, Mark A. & Osberghaus, Daniel & Simora, Michael, 2020. "Natural Disasters and Governmental Aid: Is there a Charity Hazard?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Yuner Luo & Rajib Shaw & Hanliang Lin & Jonas Joerin, 2014. "Assessing response behaviour of debris-flows affected communities in Kaohsiung, Taiwan," 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. 74(3), pages 1429-1448, December.
    15. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    16. Andrea Damm & Katharina Eberhard & Jan Sendzimir & Anthony Patt, 2013. "Perception of landslides risk and responsibility: a case study in eastern Styria, Austria," 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. 69(1), pages 165-183, October.
    17. Joop de Boer & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Teun Terpstra, 2014. "Improving Flood Risk Communication by Focusing on Prevention‐Focused Motivation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 309-322, February.
    18. Michal Titko & Jozef Ristvej & Zenon Zamiar, 2021. "Population Preparedness for Disasters and Extreme Weather Events as a Predictor of Building a Resilient Society: The Slovak Republic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-24, February.
    19. Victor Champonnois & Katrin Erdlenbruch, 2020. "Willingness of households to reduce flood risk in southern France," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02586069, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    20. Zewen Hu & Xiaocai Zhang & Jingjing Cui & Lijie Zhang & Wasim Ahmed, 2021. "A survey-based analysis of the public’s willingness for disaster relief in China," 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. 107(3), pages 2205-2225, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Institutional and Behavioral Economics; Risk and Uncertainty;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea15:205549. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.