4.7 Article

The integration of local government, residents, and insurance in coastal adaptation: An agent-based modeling approach

期刊

COMPUTERS ENVIRONMENT AND URBAN SYSTEMS
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 69-79

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.04.001

关键词

Flood risk; Agent-based model; Flood insurance; Risk mitigation; Decision-making on adaptation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous evaluation of flood risk overlooks the behavior and capacity of private stakeholders, thus limiting the application of adaptation policies. This study presents an agent-based model, applied to Miami-Dade County, FL, as the case study, to explore the public and private interaction in coastal flood adaptation and mitigation. The decision making of individuals' adaptive behavior is simulated based on the prospected theory under households' risk perception, insurance policies, and the local flood mitigation. The NFIP and private insurance policy are simulated separately to reflect the flood insurance market. Our results show that households' risk mitigation behaviors are clustered in high-risk coastal areas, including Miami-Beach and the east coast of the County. The overall flood risk is still high in the southern part of the County. To better reflect the flooding risk and address the affordability issue, a voucher coupled house elevation program could improve the insurance take-up rates as well as reduce the overall flood risk in the area. Results also indicate that private insurance would slightly increase if the NFIP's insurance rates increase. Afterward, four adaptation scenarios in response to future sea level rises are examined by considering the voucher-based insurance program and the local adaptation actions. Compared with the high-risk reduction but low coverage mitigation plan, more extensive coverage of public adaptation would better improve the overall adaptation outcome of the County, which indicates the importance of public participation in local risk mitigation and urban governance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据