Abstract
This paper analyses the preferences of public officials and citizens related to the impacts of floods in the Gothenburg region in Sweden. Citizens and public officials in the flood-prone region answered identical choice-experiment surveys characterized by the negative impacts of floods: property damage, traffic disturbances, and water supply security. By having citizens and public officials respond to identical surveys, it was possible to analyse whether and, if so, how priorities and monetary valuation differed in respect of the different negative effects of floods. The overall finding is that public officials’ and citizens’ preferences seem to converge, and that both citizens and public officials are willing to pay to reduce flood-related costs. Public officials have similar priorities to citizens, in that security of drinking water provision was given priority over property damage, while traffic disturbances were ranked lowest. In terms of their respective willingness to pay to avoid the negative impact of floods, public officials were willing to pay more than citizens to pay for securing the drinking water supply and for restoring damaged property, though these differences were not substantial. There are, however, some differences in preference between citizens and public officials: the latter preferred not to spend anything to reduce traffic disturbances caused by floods, whilst citizens were willing to do so. These results imply that decisions made within the public sector will not come to differ substantially from citizens’ preferences.
Highlights
In the light of climate change, with predicted increases in precipitation and flood risk in many parts of the world – including Sweden (IPCC, 2014), decisions made by governments today will affect the costs associated with floods faced by citizens tomorrow
Citizens and public officials in the flood-prone Gothenburg region answered identical choice experiment (CE) surveys characterised by the following negative impacts of floods, namely property damage, traffic disturbances and water supply security
By having citizens and public officials respond to identical surveys, differences in prioritisation amongst the negative effects of floods and their monetary valuation were analysed
Summary
In the light of climate change, with predicted increases in precipitation and flood risk in many parts of the world – including Sweden (IPCC, 2014), decisions made by governments today will affect the costs associated with floods faced by citizens tomorrow. Since citizens will have to bear the consequences of these decisions, it is reasonable that the decisions reflect citizens’ preferences. The aim of this paper is to analyse the preferences of public officials and citizens with regard to the impacts of floods. By letting citizens and public officials in the flood-prone region of Gothenburg, Sweden, face identical CEs regarding the negative impacts of floods, possible differences in prioritisation of these negative effects can be analysed. In this CE, the negative impacts of floods are attributed to property damage, traffic disturbances and water supply security
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
