Valuing flood disasters using the life satisfaction approach☆
Introduction
Regarding natural disasters, the last years have often been described as anni horribili. The tsunami in the Indian Ocean, Hurricane “Katrina” on the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Pakistan earthquake are the most prominent catastrophes of the recent past. In Europe, floods rank highest among natural disasters. During the past two decades, several extreme floods have occurred in Central European rivers (including the Rhine, Danube, Odra, and Wisla), culminating in the disastrous August 2002 flood in the Elbe River basin and parts of the Danube basin. Likewise, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) calls flooding “America's #1 Natural Hazard” (FEMA, 2004). And more is to be expected! Climate-induced changes in the timing of runoff for several European river basins and small Alpine catchments increase the risk of winter floods (Schröter et al., 2005). Dramatic increases in flood frequency and intensity are also likely in parts of the United States (e.g. Gleick, 1999). Questions regarding the financing of flood protection and prevention strategies are likely to raise in significance on the political agenda.
Preventive measures, and natural disasters themselves, have the characteristics of a local public good or local public bad, respectively. It is commonplace that individuals have no incentive to disclose their true demand for public goods. It is advantageous to understate demand when it positively affects contribution requirements and to overstate demand otherwise. No exception is to be expected in the case of natural hazards. Therefore, it is important to assess the utility losses caused by natural disasters. Moreover, the increase in risk raises the question to what extent risk transfer mechanisms such as (mandatory) catastrophe insurance can mitigate the effects of disasters. The higher the non-insurable psychic costs are, the less relief such a system will provide.
In economics, essentially two avenues have been pursued to elicit people's preferences for public goods: revealed preference methods on the one hand and stated preference methods on the other hand. The former are based on actual behavior and utilize complementary and substitutive relationships between public and various marketed goods to infer the value attributed to public goods from market transactions in private goods. A primary example is the hedonic method (HM). In the case of stated preference methods, individuals are directly asked to value the public good in question; the most prevalent method is the contingent valuation method (CVM). Both avenues have their weaknesses. Revealed preference methods are based on stringent assumptions and crucial elements are inherently difficult to measure. The hypothetical nature of CVM surveys, on the other hand, may entail unreliable results and strategic behavior.
We propose a novel and potentially effective complementary method to value public goods in general and natural hazards in particular, the life satisfaction approach (LSA). A growing literature in economics demonstrates that reported subjective well-being can serve as an empirically adequate and valid approximation for individually experienced welfare or utility. Hence, it is an obvious and straightforward strategy to directly evaluate public goods in utility terms. The partial correlations between the public good and life satisfaction and between income and life satisfaction capture the marginal utility of the public good and the marginal utility of income, respectively. This allows for estimating the trade-off ratio between income and natural hazards. This approach obviates some of the major difficulties inherent in both the revealed preference and stated preference methods. As it is not based on observed behavior, the underlying assumptions are less restrictive and non-use values can – to some extent – be measured. Furthermore, individuals are not asked to value the public good directly, but to evaluate their general life satisfaction. This is presumably a cognitively less demanding task, does not evoke answers considered desirable by the persons asked, and there is no reason to expect strategic behavior.
This paper has three major objectives. First, we present the LSA and discuss some conceptual issues (Section 2). Second, we apply it to measure the utility consequences caused by major floods for 16 European countries in the period between 1973 and 1998 (Section 3). The analysis is based on combined cross-section and time-series data and 56 major flood events. We find that flood disasters have a significant and robust negative impact on people's reported life satisfaction. The effect is monetized by calculating the compensating surplus for prevention of events. These monetized effects lie within the range of estimates found in hedonic housing studies. Third, in an additional explorative analysis, we estimate the effects of different risk transfer mechanisms. We find risk-transfer mechanisms to have large mitigating effects that come close to fully compensating the impacts of a flood event. Consequently, the effects of flood disasters in regions without such a mechanism are larger than the effect in all regions and the effect in regions with such a mechanism is small. Section 4 offers concluding remarks.
Section snippets
The basic concept
Due to extensive work by psychologists, the measurement of experienced utility has made great progress (see the surveys by Diener et al., 1999, Kahneman et al., 1999). We follow the terminology proposed by Kahneman et al. (1997) to differentiate between decision utility as a representation of preferences derived from choice and experienced utility as an interpretation of utility in hedonistic terms broadly understood. Experienced utility is usually measured by survey questions on respondents'
Effects of floods on life satisfaction
In the following, we use the LSA to measure utility losses caused by flood disasters. The main results are based on 16 European countries. In order to show that the results are potentially valid more generally, we briefly report the effects of floods on subjective well-being from repeated cross-section analyses across U.S. counties.
Concluding remarks
The recent development in happiness research suggests that self-reported life satisfaction can serve as a proxy measure for (experienced) utility. Provided that life satisfaction data contain information on respondents' global evaluations of their present life, that the proportion of noise stemming from current affect is sufficiently small, and that problems of interpersonal comparability of utility can be overcome by focusing on groups rather than single individuals, life satisfaction data can
References (64)
- et al.
Inequality and happiness: are Europeans and Americans different?
Journal of Public Economics
(2004) - et al.
Well-being over time in Britain and the USA
Journal of Public Economics
(2004) - et al.
Welfare analysis when budget constraints are nonlinear: the case of flood hazard reduction
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
(1994) Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect
Journal of Public Economics
(2005)Regression analysis with a categorized explanatory variable
- et al.
Does happiness adapt? A longitudinal study of disability with implications for economists and judges
Journal of Public Economics
(2008) The open society assesses its enemies: shocks, disasters and terrorist attacks
Journal of Monetary Economics
(2004)Climate equivalence scales: an application of a general method
European Economic Review
(1988)- et al.
New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis
(2006) - et al.
The Lognormal Distribution
(1957)
Effects of flood hazards on property values: evidence before and after Hurricane Floyd
Land Economics
Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence
Environmental and Resource Economics
Unemployment as a social norm: psychological evidence from panel data
Journal of Labor Economics
Some uses of happiness data in economics
Journal of Economic Perspectives
Preferences over inflation and unemployment: evidence from surveys of happiness
American Economic Review
Subjective well-being: three decades of progress
Psychological Bulletin
Hedonic price analysis of the effects of a floodplain on property values
Water Resources Bulletin
Income satisfaction measures in equivalence scale applications
Everything in Its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo Creek Flood
Happiness, economy and institutions
Economic Journal
What can economists learn from happiness research?
Journal of Economic Literature
The influence of the threat of flooding on housing values in Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota
The political economy of Fema disaster payments
Economic Inquiry
Introduction: studies from the water sector of the national assessment
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Do cigarette taxes make smokers happier?
B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis and Policy: Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy
Environmental determinants of housing prices: the impact of flood zone status
Journal of Real Estate Research
Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility
Journal of Political Economy
Estimating the short-run income elasticity of demand for electricity by using cross-sectional categorized data
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Cited by (253)
Feeling the heat? Analyzing climate change sentiment in Spain using Twitter data
2024, Resource and Energy EconomicsSocioeconomic determinants of happiness: Empirical evidence from developed and developing countries
2024, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental EconomicsSocial restrictions, leisure and well-being
2024, Labour EconomicsSocial capital and individual well-being in the post-disaster period: The case of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico
2024, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionBefore dinner: The health value of gaseous fuels
2024, Energy PolicyWell-being foundations of populism in Europe
2024, European Journal of Political Economy
- ☆
We would like to thank [to be completed]. This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the European Economic Association 2006 in Vienna, the annual meeting of the Verein fuer Socialpolitik 2006 in Bayreuth, the annual meeting of the Economic Association of Austria 2006 in Vienna and the International Disaster Reduction Conference 2006 in Davos.
- 1
Tel.: +43 512 5071760.