Understanding Homeowners' Preferences and Motivations towards Public-Private Flood Protection

Abstract

Climate change is intensifying severe weather and flood hazards, putting riverfront residents at growing risk. Although existing public flood defences like dikes and nature-based solutions offer protection, recent events like those in Limburg in 2021 highlight the need to address flood risk at the homeowner level. With the expectation that homeowners must accept some flood risk, engaging them is crucial to tackling climate change's escalating impacts. Therefore, homeowners should implement private flood measures, but many fail to recognize the urgency. In the Netherlands, where a shared responsibility approach to flood risk management is evolving, provincial governments must engage homeowners to prepare for increasing flood risk. To do this, governments need insights into homeowners' preferences and motivations regarding public and private flood protection measures. This research addresses this need through a serious game and examines homeowner profiles and factors influencing private flood protection adoption.
The study begins with a literature review, incorporating theories like the Tiebout model and the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). The serious game "Where We Move" is selected, and techniques such as latent class analysis, ANOVA, and T-tests are used to determine homeowner profiles and influences on private flood measure adoption.
Three homeowner attitude profiles emerge: "Cautious Optimists," "Informed Preparers," and "Cautious Realists." These profiles reflect different knowledge levels and future flood expectations. Optimists are less likely to adopt private measures, suggesting that increasing knowledge, particularly about climate change's impact on floods, could heighten perceived threats and drive greater adoption.
Preferences for private measures are influenced by environmental benefits, personal advantages like aesthetics, and societal benefits. Financial means affect the type of measure chosen, with wealthier individuals opting for more expensive options. However, income levels do not impact the inclination to protect against flooding, highlighting that financial capabilities influence the measure's cost but not the protective response.
The level of public flood protection affects homeowners' residency choices. Generally, "grey" solutions like dikes are preferred, but low-income homeowners prioritize well-protected areas, even at a higher cost. High-income homeowners choose cheaper dike area houses and allocate their savings elsewhere.
Information about the risk reduction effect significantly influences private measure adoption, affecting homeowners' coping abilities. This aligns with research showing that informed decision-making leads to increased adoption. Homeowners are motivated when they perceive high threat levels, possess coping abilities, and take ownership of the risk. Flood experience influences the type of measure but not the adoption rate.
To address homeowners' lack of urgency, the study suggests improving communication strategies to emphasize how private measures reduce risks. Subsidies and collaborative initiatives can narrow the gap between high and low-income homeowners. Future research should explore intangible factors like psychological stress and denial and consider cost-effectiveness, familiarity, knowledge levels, and perspectives on future flooding.
While this research provides valuable insights, it acknowledges limitations in sample variation and size adequacy and doesn't delve into nuanced factors like psychological stress. Future research can build on these insights, refining flood risk mitigation strategies for safer and more resilient communities in the face of flooding.