Abstract

While natural hazards have never been so frequent in modern history, the political economy of disaster preparation remains largely understudied. To prepare for natural disasters, local governments can adopt mitigation measures (e.g., infrastructure elevation, retrofitting, shelter construction, etc.). However, in doing so, there is a trade-off between risk reduction and risk disclosure as these initiatives may signal latent dangers of a place to unsuspecting homebuyers. Increased media coverage may ease this trade-off by revealing these dormant risks. I develop a measure of newspaper coverage of storms using data on newspapers’ circulation and the occurrence of storms at the ZIP code level in the United States. Using the variation in this measure, I identify the effects of heightened media attention on local governments’ mitigation efforts under the Hazard Mitigation Grant program managed by FEMA. I find that when newspaper coverage is high, jurisdictions that have experienced severe storms tend to implement significantly more mitigation projects. Conversely, when coverage of storms is low, jurisdictions do not undertake mitigation projects after being hit by a storm. My results are primarily driven by ZIP codes with high pre-treatment levels of vacant housing units, housing units occupied by renters, and housing units owned with a mortgage. I argue that local governments may be strategically underinvesting in disaster preparation to avoid revealing their jurisdictions’ inherent risk to otherwise uninformed property investors.

Highlights

  • It is a common mistake to confuse extreme weather events and natural disasters

  • While the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) advertises that 1 dollar spent on mitigation saves taxpayers 6 dollars of potential losses2, natural disasters cost the United-States’ economy a record 306 billion dollars in 20173

  • The heterogeneous analysis shows that they are primarily induced by locations with high pre-treatment levels of renter-occupied housing, vacant housing units, housing units owned with a mortgage, and areas having experienced higher inflows of populations before a storm – which is consistent with the real-estate investment patterns described by the anecdotal evidence

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is a common mistake to confuse extreme weather events and natural disasters. Both are generally perceived as powerful, violent, unavoidable life hazards, or ‘acts of God.’. Individuals lack information about the risks they take when investing in a location. If individuals are not aware of their actual risk exposure, should we not expect their local governments to prepare for disasters on their behalf? While the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) advertises that 1 dollar spent on mitigation saves taxpayers 6 dollars of potential losses, natural disasters cost the United-States’ economy a record 306 billion dollars in 20173. Local administrations spent a more modest amount of 8.6 billion dollars worth of FEMA mitigation subsidies on that same year. What explains local governments’ apparent reluctance when it comes to mitigation?

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call