Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDebra Javeline
dc.contributor.authorTracy Kijewski-Correa
dc.contributor.authorAngela Chesler
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-07T20:14:27Z
dc.date.available2022-05-07T20:14:27Z
dc.date.issued2021-11-02
dc.identifier.other(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000533.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4282164
dc.description.abstractSubsidized insurance is often described as a perverse incentive, moral hazard, or maladaptation that perpetuates coastal residencies in vulnerable homes despite increasing safety and economic risks from hurricanes, sea level rise, and other climate change impacts. Insurance is also often described as a positive factor in coastal risk reduction if insurers proactively reward homeowners for upgrades that mitigate losses from hurricanes. The empirical and policy-relevant question remains whether homeowners perceive insurance incentives as perverse or positive. A new survey of 662 North Carolina coastal homeowners shows that most are failing to upgrade their homes to address hurricane risk or plan for coastal retreat but not because they expect insurance to cover losses. Rather those aware of insurance incentives are more likely to live in better-protected residences and take the incentivized actions. Limited awareness of existing policies suggests a need for greater outreach by policymakers, lenders, and insurers.
dc.publisherASCE
dc.titleDo Perverse Insurance Incentives Encourage Coastal Vulnerability?
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume23
dc.journal.issue1
dc.journal.titleNatural Hazards Review
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000533
dc.journal.fristpage04021057
dc.journal.lastpage04021057-14
dc.page14
dc.treeNatural Hazards Review:;2021:;Volume ( 023 ):;issue: 001
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record