Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:03:20.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling demand for catastrophic flood risk insurance in coastal zones in Vietnam using choice experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2013

Roy Brouwer ,
Bui Duc Tinh ,
Tran Huu Tuan ,
Kristin Magnussen  and
Ståle Navrud
Roy Brouwer
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Bui Duc Tinh
Affiliation:
College of Economics, Hue University, Vietnam. E-mail: [email protected]
Tran Huu Tuan
Affiliation:
College of Economics, Hue University, Vietnam. E-mail: [email protected]
Kristin Magnussen
Affiliation:
Vista Analyse, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]
Ståle Navrud
Affiliation:
School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a choice experiment, households in Vietnam are offered flood insurance to mitigate increasing catastrophic flood risks due to climate change. Participants are asked to choose their most preferred insurance policy given expected future flood and mortality risks, insurance cover and associated insurance premiums. Although not affordable to everyone, there exists substantial demand for flood insurance. Insurance demand is spatially differentiated, non-linear in flood probabilities and mortality risks, and subject to significant preference heterogeneity. Since respondents are unfamiliar with the concept of flood insurance and education levels are low, choice consistency tests were conducted. These show that choice consistency depends on a combination of respondent characteristics, such as gender and education level, and experimental design characteristics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 228 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper is based on a case study carried out under the European Commission 6th Framework Research Programme funded project MICRODIS: Integrated Health Social and Economic Impacts of Extreme Events: Evidence, Methods and Tools (Contract No. GOCE-CT-2007-036877).

References

Akter, S., Brouwer, R., van Beukering, P., Silver, E., French, L., Choudhury, S., and Aziz, S. (2011), ‘Exploring the feasibility of private micro flood insurance provision in Bangladesh’, Disasters 35(2): 287–307.Google Scholar
Alberini, A. and Chiabai, A. (2007), ‘Urban environmental health and sensitive populations: how much are the Italians willing to pay to reduce their risks?’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 37(2): 239–258.Google Scholar
Bateman, I.J., Brouwer, R., Hanley, N., Georgiou, S., Machado, M., Mourato, S., and Saunders, C. (2005), ‘A “natural experiment” approach to contingent valuation of private and public UV health risk reduction strategies in low and high risk countries’, Environmental and Resource Economics 31: 47–72.Google Scholar
Bhat, C.R. (2001), ‘Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model’, Transportation Research Part B 35: 677–693.Google Scholar
Botzen, W.J.W. and van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2008), ‘Insurance against climate change and flooding in The Netherlands: present, future and comparison with other countries’, Risk Analysis 28(2): 413–426.Google Scholar
Botzen, W.J.W. and van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2012), ‘Monetary valuation of insurance against flood risk under climate change’, International Economic Review 53(3): 1005–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, R. and Akter, S. (2010), ‘Informing micro insurance contract design to mitigate climate change catastrophe risks using choice experiments’, Environmental Hazards 9: 74–88.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R. and Schaafsma, M. (2013), ‘Modelling risk adaptation and mitigation behaviour under different climate change scenarios’, Climatic Change 117: 11–29.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R., Akter, S., Brander, L., and Haque, E. (2009), ‘Economic valuation of flood risk exposure and flood risk reduction in a severely flood prone developing country’, Environment and Development Economics 14(3): 397–417.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R., Dekker, T., Rolfe, J., and Windle, J. (2010), ‘Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments’, Environmental and Resource Economics 46(1): 93–109.Google Scholar
Brown, T.C., Kingsley, D., Peterson, G.L., Flores, N.E., Clarke, A., and Birjulin, A. (2008), ‘Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement’, Journal of Public Economics 92: 1595–1606.Google Scholar
Browne, M.J. and Hoyt, R.E. (2000), ‘The demand for flood insurance: empirical evidence’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20(3): 291–306.Google Scholar
Dekker, T., Brouwer, R., Hofkes, M., and Moeltner, K. (2011), ‘The effect of risk context on the value of a statistical life: a Bayesian meta-model’, Environmental and Resource Economics 49(4): 597–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeShazo, J.R. and Fermo, G. (2002), ‘Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 123–143.Google Scholar
Do, T.N. and Bennett, J. (2008), ‘Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam's Mekong River Delta’, Environment and Development Economics 14: 163–186.Google Scholar
Eeckhoudt, L.R. and Hammitt, J.K. (2001), ‘Background risks and the value of a statistical life’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23(3): 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GSO (2008), General Statistics Office of Vietnam Statistical Handbook 2008, Hanoi: Statistical Publishing House, [Available at] http://www.gso.gov.vn.Google Scholar
Hanley, N., Mourato, S., and Wright, R.E. (2001), ‘Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?’, Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3): 435–462.Google Scholar
Hazell, P.B.R. (1992), ‘The appropriate role of agricultural insurance in developing countries’, Journal of International Development 4: 567–581.Google Scholar
Hazell, P.B.R. (2001), ‘Potential role for insurance in managing catastrophic risk in developing countries’, Occasional Paper, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., and Greene, W.H. (2005), Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hynes, S., Hanley, N., and Scarpa, R. (2008), ‘Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(4): 1011–1027.Google Scholar
IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kleindorfer, P. and Kunreuther, H. (1999), ‘The complimentary roles of mitigation and insurance in managing catastrophic risks’, Risk Analysis 19: 727–738.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H. (1996), ‘Mitigating disaster losses through insurance’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12: 171–187.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H. (2006), ‘Disaster mitigation and insurance: learning from Katrina’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 604: 208–227.Google Scholar
Kunreuther, H.C., Michel-Kerjan, E.O., Doherty, N.A., Grace, M.F., Klein, R.W., and Pauly, M.V. (2009), At War with the Weather: Managing Large-Scale Risks in a New Era of Catastrophes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Braathen, N.A., and Biausque, V. (2011), ‘Valuing lives saved from environment, transport and health policies. A meta analysis’, Risk Analysis 31(9): 1381–1407.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel-Kerjan, E. and Kousky, C. (2010), ‘Come rain or shine: evidence on flood insurance purchases in Florida’, Journal of Risk and Insurance 77: 369–397.Google Scholar
MOLISA (2009), Information about the poverty line, Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs, [Available at] http://www.unescap.org/pdd/projects/pov_map/11b-Vietnam%20poverty%20mapping.doc.Google Scholar
Quang Nam People Committee (2008), Annual Report on Disasters in 2007 and Planning for Disaster Prevention in 2008, Tam Ky Town, Vietnam.Google Scholar
Scarpa, R., Ferrini, S., and Willis, K. (2005), ‘Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments’, in Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A. (eds), Applications in Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 247–273.Google Scholar
Shaikh, S.L., Sun, L., and van Kooten, G.C. (2007), ‘Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: a comparison of empirical treatments’, Ecological Economics 62: 115–125.Google Scholar
Shogren, J. and Crocker, T. (1991), ‘Risk, self-protection, and ex ante valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20: 1–15.Google Scholar
SRV (2007), National Strategy for Natural Disaster Prevention, Response and Mitigation to 2020, Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam.Google Scholar
Swait, J. and Louviere, J. (1993), ‘The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models’, Journal of Marketing Research 30(3): 305–314.Google Scholar
Train, K. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1979), ‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica 47: 263–291.Google Scholar
Vandeveer, M.L. (2001), ‘Demand for area crop insurance among litchi producers in northern Vietnam’, Agricultural Economics 26: 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar