Suchergebnisse

Researchers and policy makers agreed that we need to take measures now to respond to climate change impacts in the future. As the EU, its Member States and regions start to organise their adaptation efforts, it is important to understand the institutional contexts and potential challenges that might arise in the course of developing and implementing adaptation policies. This paper gives an overview of governance problems and decision-making needs that policy makers currently face. Based on empirical research in eight European countries, we mapped out the institutional context in which adaptation decisions are made and identified ten categories of needs as perceived by core policy-makers. We found no significant patterns as to why certain countries have specific needs, but there are indications that the needs change during the adaptation planning process and that Central and Eastern European countries might benefit from EU coordination efforts.

In light of increasing losses from floods many researchers and policy makers are looking for ways to encourage flood risk reduction among communities, business, and households. In this study we investigate risk reduction behavior at the household level in three European Union (EU) Member States with fundamentally different insurance and compensation schemes. We try to understand if and how insurance and public assistance influence private risk reduction behavior. Data was collected using a telephone survey (n=1,849) of household decision makers in flood-prone areas. We show that insurance overall is positively associated with private risk reduction behavior. Warranties, premium discounts, and information provision with respect to risk reduction may be an explanation for this positive relationship in the case of structural measures. Public incentives for risk-reduction measures by means of financial and in-kind support, and particularly through the provision of information are also associated with enhancing risk reduction. In this study public compensation is not negatively associated with private risk reduction behavior. This does not disprove such a relationship, but the negative effect may be mitigated by factors related to respondent's capacity to implement measures or social norms that were not included in the analysis. The data suggests that large-scale flood protection infrastructure creates a sense of security that is associated with a lower level of preparedness. Across the board there is ample room to improve both public and private policies to provide effective incentives for household level risk reduction.

In light of increasing losses from floods, many researchers and policymakers are looking for ways to encourage flood risk reduction among communities, business, and households. In this study, we investigate risk‐reduction behavior at the household level in three European Union Member States with fundamentally different insurance and compensation schemes. We try to understand if and how insurance and public assistance influence private risk‐reduction behavior. Data were collected using a telephone survey (n = 1,849) of household decisionmakers in flood‐prone areas. We show that insurance overall is positively associated with private risk‐reduction behavior. Warranties, premium discounts, and information provision with respect to risk reduction may be an explanation for this positive relationship in the case of structural measures. Public incentives for risk‐reduction measures by means of financial and in‐kind support, and particularly through the provision of information, are also associated with enhancing risk reduction. In this study, public compensation is not negatively associated with private risk‐reduction behavior. This does not disprove such a relationship, but the negative effect may be mitigated by factors related to respondents' capacity to implement measures or social norms that were not included in the analysis. The data suggest that large‐scale flood protection infrastructure creates a sense of security that is associated with a lower level of preparedness. Across the board there is ample room to improve both public and private policies to provide effective incentives for household‐level risk reduction. ; ISSN:0272-4332 ; ISSN:1539-6924

AbstractIn light of increasing losses from floods, many researchers and policymakers are looking for ways to encourage flood risk reduction among communities, business, and households. In this study, we investigate risk‐reduction behavior at the household level in three European Union Member States with fundamentally different insurance and compensation schemes. We try to understand if and how insurance and public assistance influence private risk‐reduction behavior. Data were collected using a telephone survey (n = 1,849) of household decisionmakers in flood‐prone areas. We show that insurance overall is positively associated with private risk‐reduction behavior. Warranties, premium discounts, and information provision with respect to risk reduction may be an explanation for this positive relationship in the case of structural measures. Public incentives for risk‐reduction measures by means of financial and in‐kind support, and particularly through the provision of information, are also associated with enhancing risk reduction. In this study, public compensation is not negatively associated with private risk‐reduction behavior. This does not disprove such a relationship, but the negative effect may be mitigated by factors related to respondents' capacity to implement measures or social norms that were not included in the analysis. The data suggest that large‐scale flood protection infrastructure creates a sense of security that is associated with a lower level of preparedness. Across the board there is ample room to improve both public and private policies to provide effective incentives for household‐level risk reduction.

Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation Omar Masera, Richard Plevin, Roberto Schaeffer, Rainer Zah and Jacob Mulugetta during the literature appraisal. Carmenza Robledo-Abad acknowledges support from the Swiss State Secretary of Economic Affairs. Helmut Haberl gratefully acknowledges funding from the Austrian Provision Programme, the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Global Change Programme) and the EU-FP7 project VOLANTE. Esteve Corbera acknowledges the support of the Spanish Research, Development and Innovation Secretariat through a 'Ramón y Cajal' research fellowship (RYC-2010-07183) and of a Marie Curie Career Integration Grant (PCIG09-GA-2011-294234). Simon Bolwig acknowledges the support of the Innovation Fond Denmark. Alexander Popp acknowledges the support from the European Union's Seventh Framework Program project LUC4C (grant agreement no. 603542). Bart Muys acknowledges support from the KLIMOS Acropolis research network on sustainable development funded by VLIR/ARES/DGD (Belgian Development Aid). Rasmus Kløcker Larsen acknowledges funding from the Swedish research council Formas. Carol Hunsberger acknowledges the support of a postdoctoral fellowship from Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. John Garcia-Ulloa is supported by the Mercator Foundation Switzerland and the Zurich-Basel Plant Science Center. Johan Lilliestam, Anna Geddes and Susan Hanger acknowledge the support from the European Research Council (ERC) consolidator grant, contract number 313533. Joana Portugal-Pereira acknowledges the support of National Centre of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq), under the Science Without Borders Programme (no 401164/2012-8). Richard Harper acknowledges funding from the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF